WHO informal consultation on the guidelines for evaluation of the quality, safety, and efficacy of DNA vaccines, Geneva, Switzerland, December 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consultations have been held to promote the revision of the WHO guidelines for assuring the quality and nonclinical safety evaluation of DNA vaccines adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2005. The drivers for this revision are described, including the need for regulatory convergence highlighted by the WHO R&D Blueprint. These consultations have driven the revision to its current form, where a new guideline that includes quality, nonclinical, and clinical evaluation of plasmid DNA vaccines is being prepared for public consultation with a view to present to an upcoming ECBS. Major changes to the guidelines include streamlining the existing quality (part A) and nonclinical (part B) sections to reflect the two decades of experience, with manufacturing and control, nonclinical evaluation, and clinical testing of plasmid DNA vaccines, as a platform technology. The urgency for gaining regulatory convergence on this topic is that development of such a platform technology as DNA vaccines for routine use immunizations will prepare manufacturers and regulators across the globe in dealing with rapid development of medical countermeasures against emerging infectious diseases even in the face of an emergency setting. Two examples are described of Zika candidate vaccines that have rapidly advanced in development based on preexisting nonclinical and clinical data that precluded the need to repeat nonclinical toxicology. This report describes the progress stemming from the most recent consultation on the guidelines, including topics discussed and consensus reached.
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 | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.014 |
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".