MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Drug Master File Filing in US, Europe, Canada and Australia

2017· article· en· W2738563879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Indu Gurram, M. V. S. Kavitha, Nagarjuna Reddy, M. Nagabhushanam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmaceutical Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrugBusinessMedicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose : A Drug Master File (DMF) is a submission to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that may be used to provide confidential detailed information about facilities, processes, or articles used in the manufacturing, processing, packaging, and storing of one or more human drugs. The submission of a DMF is not required by law or FDA regulation, it is submitted solely at the discretion of the DMF holder. The DMF contains factual and complete information on a drug product's chemistry, manufacture, stability, purity, impurity profile, packaging, and the cGMP status of any human drug product. The present work gives the Detailed idea on how to file Drug Master File in US, EUROPE, CANADA, AUSTRALIA. Approach : A Drug Master File is a submission of information to the FDA to permit the FDA to review this information in support of a third party's submission without revealing the information to the third party. In US, DMF filing was done through NDA for drugs, ANDA for generics and BLA for Biologics. In Europe, DMF filing was done through MAA via centralized procedure for eligible products and for other products via decentralized procedure was used. In CANADA, DMF filing was done through NDS for both drugs and biologic products, where as in AUSTRALIA different application processes and regulatory requirements apply depending on the type of therapeutic goods that is applied. Findings : This gives you clear vision on how to file Drug master file in US, EUROPE, CANADA and AUSTRALIA. This paper also gives you the comparison of DMF fling procedure in the above-mentioned countries so that reader can have clear idea on how to file DMF and different concerns on DMF among the above counties. Conclusion : The DMF contains factual and complete information on a drug product's chemistry, manufacture, stability, purity, impurity profile, Packaging and the cGMP status of any Drug product for humans. The content and the format for Drug Master File is used to obtain marketing Authorization. The main objective of the DMF is to support regulatory requirements of a medicinal product to prove its quality, safety and efficacy. This helps to obtain a marketing authorization grant. Now from 2016 onwards most of the regulated countries will use eCTD or their electronic format for their DMF submission.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.020

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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.076 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmaceutical ResearchSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207