The Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative — Update on progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of the ICH S7B and E14 guidelines has been successful in preventing the introduction of potentially torsadogenic drugs to the market, but it has also unduly constrained drug development by focusing on hERG block and QT prolongation as essential determinants of proarrhythmia risk. The Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative was established to develop a new paradigm for assessing proarrhythmic risk, building on the emergence of new technologies and an expanded understanding of torsadogenic mechanisms beyond hERG block. An international multi-disciplinary team of regulatory, industry and academic scientists are working together to develop and validate a set of predominantly nonclinical assays and methods that eliminate the need for the thorough-QT study and enable a more precise prediction of clinical proarrhythmia risk. The CiPA effort is led by a Steering Team that provides guidance, expertise and oversight to the various working groups and includes partners from US FDA, HESI, CSRC, SPS, EMA, Health Canada, Japan NIHS, and PMDA. The working groups address the three pillars of CiPA that evaluate drug effects on: 1) human ventricular ionic channel currents in heterologous expression systems, 2) in silico integration of cellular electrophysiologic effects based on ionic current effects, the ion channel effects, and 3) fully integrated biological systems (stem-cell-derived cardiac myocytes and the human ECG). This article provides an update on the progress of the initiative towards its target date of December 2017 for completing validation.
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 | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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".