MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978074964 · doi:10.4155/bio-2019-0207

GCC Consolidated Feedback to ICH on the 2019 ICH M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation Draft Guideline

2019· article· de· W2978074964 on OpenAlexaff
Corey Nehls, Michael H. Buonarati, Stephanie Cape, Rafiq Islam, Christina Satterwhite, Chad Briscoe, Andrew Dinan, Kurt J. Sales, Shelby R Anderson, Jennifer Vance, John Lindsay, Jennifer Zimmer, Philippe Couerbe, Ardeshir Khadang, Sarah Maasjo, Orlando Bravo, Kathie Lindley, Liam Moran, Timothy Sangster, Jenifer Vija, John Stamatopoulos, Jenny Lin, Scott Reuschel, Angie Underberg, Robert MacNeill, Luca Matassa, Adriane Spytko, Wei Garofolo, Natasha Savoie, Paul Rhyne, Jason Ambrosius, Valentine Barra, Dawn Dufield, Marsha Luna, Franklin Spriggs, Evgueni Fedorov, Hanna Ritzén, Saadya Fatmi, Cheikh Kane, Mohammed Bouhajib, Chantal DiMarco, A. Iordăchescu, Ariana Tudoroniu, Esme Farley, Bruce Stouffer, Edward Tabler, Stacie McCown, Joseph Bower, Travis Harrison, Shane Karnik, Michael Brown, Philip Joyce, Ira DuBey, Brian Hoffpauir, Nadine Boudreau, Jerome Bergeron, Hao Wang, Hao Feng, Shaolian Zhou, Edward Wells, John Pirro, Xinping Fang, Jing Shi, Changming Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueBioanalysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsNEOMED InstituteLambda Therapeutic ResearchPharma Medica Research (Canada)Grand Challenges CanadaAltasciences (Canada)Green Communities CanadaRoyal Canadian Military InstituteCelerion (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineBioanalysisAttendanceEngineeringPolitical scienceNanotechnologyLawMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, 2019. This GCC meeting was organized to discuss the contents of the 2019 ICH M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation Draft Guideline published in February 2019 and consolidate the feedback of the GCC members. In attendance were 63 senior-level participants from eight countries representing 44 bioanalytical CRO companies/sites. This event represented a unique opportunity for CRO bioanalytical experts to share their opinions and concerns regarding the ICH M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation Draft Guideline and to build unified comments to be provided to the ICH.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.018

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioanalysisSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207