Development of an algorithm to identify mass production candidate molecules to develop children’s oral medicines: a North American perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gap in the commercially-available pediatric drug products and formulations suitable for children, especially those below the age of 6 years, is long recognized. A group of clinicians and scientists with a common interest in pediatric drug development and medicines-use systems developed a practical framework for identifying a list of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) with the greatest market potential for development to use in pediatric patients. Reliable and reproducible evidence-based drug formulations designed for use in pediatric patients are needed vitally, otherwise safe and consistent clinical practices and outcomes assessments will continue to be difficult to ascertain. Identification of a prioritized list of candidate APIs for oral formulation using the described algorithm provides a broader integrated clinical, scientific, regulatory, and market basis to allow for more reliable dosage forms and safer, effective medicines use in children of all ages. Group members derived a list of candidate API molecules by factoring in a number of pharmacotherapeutic, scientific, manufacturing, and regulatory variables into the selection algorithm that were absent in other rubrics. These additions will assist in identifying and categorizing prime API candidates suitable for oral formulation development. Moreover, the developed algorithm aids in prioritizing useful APIs with finished oral liquid dosage forms available either adapted from other countries or the aim to register them in North America and beyond.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".