Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drugs is a topic that was certainly an issue of discussion at this year's annual meeting. This Committee had the responsibility of organizing a half day symposium on "Pharmaceutical Authenticity and Safety" that took place September 12, 2005. This symposium aims at improving the critical points in the analytical pharmaceutical field related to traceability assessment, use of certified reference materials (CRMs), and proficiency testing implementation to get the highest quality of the obtained results. Recognized experts presented these topics. Also, other complementary subjects, such as the application of advanced analytical technologies to reach the authenticity and safety of the pharmaceutical drugs and drug products, their microbiological quality assessment, without disregarding an important topic such as sampling, was presented and discussed. The talks that were presented are the following: "Proficiency Testing as a Need in the Pharmaceutical Field," Arlene Fox (AOAC INTERNATIONAL, Gaithersburg, MD); "Implementation of Traceability in the Pharmaceutical Laboratory," Thomas Layloff, (Management Sciences for Health, Arlington, VA); "Harmonized Characteristics of Certified Reference Materials According to ISO Guides-Attractive also for Pharmaceutical Analysis," Hendrik Emons (Reference Materials, Unit Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), Joint Research Centre European Commission, (Geel, Belgium); "Importance of LC/MS/MS for the Fingerprinting of Pharmaceutical Drugs," Paul A. Steinberg, (Thermo Electron Corp., Woodstock, GA); "Process Analytical Technology (PAT) as a Way for Better Manufacturing and Quality Assurance," John F. Kauffman (Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (St. Louis, MO); "Stability Testing for the Safety Assessment of Pharmaceuticals," Marta Vidal (Boeringher Ingelheim Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina); "Validation of Microbiological Methods for Sterile and Nonsterile Pharmaceutical Products," Michael Brodsky (Brodsky Consultants, Thornhill, ON, Canada); "The Relationship Between Pharmacopoeial Reference Standards and ISO REMCO Initiatives and Guides," Ronald G. Manning (United States Pharmacopoeia, Rockville, MD).
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 | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.066 |
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".