MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320750953 · doi:10.5639/gabij.2014.0303.033

Subsequent entry biologics (biosimilars) in Canada: approaches to interchangeability and the extrapolation of indications and uses

2014· article· en· W2320750953 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ágnes Klein, Jian Wang, Patrick Bedford

Bibliographic record

VenueGenerics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosimilarInterchangeabilityExtrapolationBusinessMedicineComputer scienceMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principles Health Canada use when extrapolating the indications and uses of a biosimilar product subsequent to a single clinical trial or limited number and scope of clinical trials during product development are discussed. The principles underlying the regulatory framework for subsequent entry biologics (SEBs or biosimilars) in Canada explain the position taken by

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.007
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0050.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.117 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenerics and Biosimilars Initiative JournalSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207