Patient Focus and Regulatory Considerations for Inhalation Device Design: Report from the 2015 IPAC-RS/ISAM Workshop
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on discussions at the 2015 workshop cosponsored by the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium on Regulation and Science (IPAC-RS) and the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM), entitled "Regulatory and Patient Considerations for Inhalation Device Design, Development and Use." Key topics addressed at the workshop and presented here include patient-focused device design for orally inhaled products (OIPs), instructions for use (IFU), human factors, regulatory considerations in the United States and Europe, development of generic inhalers, quality-by-design, and change management of OIP devices. Workshop participants also identified several areas for further consideration and emphasized the need for increased focus on the patient to create therapeutic products (inclusive of device design, IFU, education, training) that support adherence with an individual patient's treatment regimen. Advances in patient-centric product development will require engagement and collaboration by industry, regulators, patients, physicians, and other stakeholders. The article includes summaries of presented talks as well as of panel and audience discussions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it