MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051968298 · doi:10.1159/000367833

Biosimilars: Are They Bioequivalent?

2014· review· en· W2051968298 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigestive Diseases · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosimilarMedicineInfliximabInterchangeabilityBioequivalenceClinical trialPharmacovigilanceIntensive care medicineDiseasePharmacologyAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biologics have revolutionized several areas of medical therapeutics, and dozens of them are used by millions of patients. Monoclonal antibodies are only one type of biologics, but more than 900 are now in different phases of development. These drugs are complex to make and not cheap. The market is constantly increasing, and several biosimilars (copies of biologics) are being used, while many are still waiting to become available to the public. Biosimilars are more complex than generics, and regulatory agencies have very stringent criteria for approval. In the IBD field, the biosimilar infliximab (Inflectra®, Remsima®) has been recently approved by the EMA, but not by Canadian authorities. The EMA has considered that 'high similarity' in preclinical studies together with clinical data from two trials in ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis warrant the 'extrapolation' for all approved indications for original infliximab (Remicade®), specifically Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Canadian authorities have not accepted extrapolation, based on differences in glycosylation (fucosylation) that could be related to properties important in Crohn's disease. Most scientific societies do support the idea of asking for specific clinical trials before approval, although they acknowledge that following EMA, FDA, and WHO guidelines warrant safe products. Practical issues such as interchangeability and substitution remain unsolved, and it is very likely that there will be different solutions at the national level. Pharmacovigilance plans will be key for obtaining reliable data. Biosimilars are not better drugs, but can be clearly cheaper and may facilitate access to new treatments in many populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it