WHO consultation on clinical evaluation of vaccines, 17–18 July 2014, WHO Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A World Health Organization (WHO) consultation on guidelines for National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and vaccine manufacturers on clinical evaluation of vaccines was held from 17 to 18 July 2014, to review key scientific challenges that regulators have been facing since the establishment of the WHO Guidelines on Clinical Evaluation of Vaccines. The guidelines, adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2001, have served as the basis for setting or updating national requirements for the evaluation and licensing of a broad range of vaccines as well as for WHO vaccine prequalification. Regulators from Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, Germany, India, Republic of Korea, South Africa, United States of America and the United Kingdom were represented. The International Federation for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association (IFPMA) and the Developing Country Vaccine Manufacturers' Network (DCVMN) provided industry representation. The consultation concluded that the guidelines should be revised to address issues that were raised in the context of vaccines that were the subject of clinical development in the past decade. Although the current guidelines have served well over time, it was recognized that an update would further increase their utility and would help regulators, manufacturers, vaccine developers and academia to respond to the challenging questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines intended for global use. A summary of the main outcomes of the consultation and proposals for the next steps regarding the guidelines and beyond are provided in this report.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.026 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".