WHO informal consultation on revision of guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products, virtual meeting, 30 June – 2 July 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WHO informal consultation was held to promote the revision of WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. It was agreed in the past consultations that the evaluation principles in the guidelines are still valid, but a review was recommended to provide more clarity and case-by-case flexibility. The opportunity was therefore taken to review the experience and identify areas where the current guidance could be more permissive without compromising its basic principles, and where additional explanation could be provided regarding the possibility of reducing the amount of data needed for regulatory approval. The meeting participants applauded the leading role taken by the WHO in providing a much-needed streamlined approach for development and evaluation of SBPs which will provide efficient and cost-effective product development and increase patient access to treatments. It was recognized that the principles as currently described in the draft WHO guidelines are based on sound science and experience gained over the last fifteen years of biosimilar approvals. However, since these guidelines when finalised will constitute the global standard for biosimilar evaluation and assist national regulatory authorities in establishing revised guidance and regulatory practice in this complex area, it was felt that further revision and clarity on certain perspectives in specific areas was necessary to dispel uncertainties arising in the current revised version. This report describes the principles in the draft 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 | 0.033 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.013 |
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".