The Global Bioequivalence Harmonisation Initiative (GBHI): Report of EUFEPS/AAPS fourth conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Conference on Global Bioequivalence Harmonisation Initiative (GBHI) that was co-organised by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Sciences (EUFEPS) and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). The goal of the GBHI conference is to offer the most informative and up to date science and regulatory thinking of bioequivalence (BE) in global drug development to support the intended process of a scientific global harmonisation. The workshop provided an open forum for pharmaceutical scientists from academia, industry and regulatory agencies to discuss three BE topics of interest, (a) BE assessment for long-acting injectables and implants, (b) necessity of fed BE studies for immediate-release products and (c) procedures to demonstrate equivalence of orally inhaled products. Moreover, in keynote lectures, a potential road map to an international BE reference product was discussed, and visions and perspectives for future global BE harmonisation activities have been presented. The meeting delivered a cutting-edge insight into the topics in an interactive and at the same time focused way.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".