Deficiencies in generic product dossiers as submitted to the WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to determine the type and extent of deficiencies in generic product dossiers in the therapeutic areas of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and reproductive health, as submitted to the WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme. There were considerably more quality-related deficiencies in tuberculosis, malaria and reproductive health dossiers compared to HIV dossiers, especially in the category specification of active pharmaceutical ingredients, development pharmaceutics, manufacturing method and finished pharmaceutical product specifications. The deficiencies related to the efficacy/safety portion of the dossiers displayed a trend similar to that observed in the quality portion in that the most critical deficiencies such as an incorrect study design, the use of an unacceptable comparator or the failure to include a study occurred considerably more frequently in the tuberculosis, malaria and reproductive health dossiers than in the HIV dossiers. The frequency of dossier-related deficiencies as determined on screening and assessment of the dossiers seemed to be inversely related to the number of product dossiers that had been prequalified by the end of 2010. The results of this study stress the need for continued capacity building of local generic manufacturers, further development of pharmacopoeial monographs by WHO (PhInt) and other pharmacopoeial commissions, not least to promote development of generic products, as well as development of new guidelines (WHO guidelines for development of generic and paediatric products and a technology transfer guidance document are currently being finalized). To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review of the quality and efficacy/safety portions of generic product dossiers, originating from pharmaceutical companies in emerging markets, and comparison of dossier deficiencies across four critically important therapeutic areas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".