MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998394273 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032592

Standardising neonatal and paediatric antibiotic clinical trial design and conduct: the PENTA-ID network view

2019· article· en· W2998394273 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Folgori, Irja Lutsar, Joseph F. Standing, A. Sarah Walker, Emmanuel Roilides, Theoklis E. Zaoutis, Hasan S. Jafri, Carlo Giaquinto, M. Turner, Mike Sharland

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsPediatricsClinical trialFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePathologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antimicrobial development for children remains challenging due to multiple barriers to conducting randomised clinical trials (CTs). There is currently considerable heterogeneity in the design and conduct of paediatric antibiotic studies, hampering comparison and meta-analytic approaches. The board of the European networks for paediatric research at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in collaboration with the Paediatric European Network for Treatments of AIDS-Infectious Diseases network (www.penta-id.org), recently developed a Working Group on paediatric antibiotic CT design, involving academic, regulatory and industry representatives. The evidence base for any specific criteria for the design and conduct of efficacy and safety antibiotic trials for children is very limited and will evolve over time as further studies are conducted. The suggestions being put forward here are based on the adult EMA guidance, adapted for neonates and children. In particular, this document provides suggested guidance on the general principles of harmonisation between regulatory and strategic trials, including (1) standardised key inclusion/exclusion criteria and widely applicable outcome measures for specific clinical infectious syndromes (CIS) to be used in CTs on efficacy of antibiotic in children; (2) key components of safety that should be reported in paediatric antibiotic CTs; (3) standardised sample sizes for safety studies. Summarising views from a range of key stakeholders, specific criteria for the design and conduct of efficacy and safety antibiotic trials in specific CIS for children have been suggested. The recommended criteria are intended to be applicable to both regulatory and clinical investigator-led strategic trials and could be the basis for harmonisation in the design and conduct of CTs on antibiotics in children. The next step is further discussion internationally with investigators, paediatric CTs networks and regulators.

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)0.749
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.740
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7490.740
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0300.015
Open science0.0140.018
Research integrity0.0190.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.009

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.156 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207