Health Canada & Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences - Use of Real World Data/Evidence to Inform Regulatory Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real world data (RWD) and real world evidence (RWE) are playing increasing roles in health-care decisions. Real world data are routinely employed to support reimbursement and coverage decisions for drugs and devices. More recently, clinical trials incorporating pragmatic designs and observational studies are considered to supplement traditional clinical trials (e.g., randomized clinical trials). Regulatory agencies and large co-operative groups including academia and industry are exploring whether leveraging big databases such as electronic medical records and claims databases can be used to garner clinical insights extending beyond those gained from randomized controlled studies. Whether RWE can ultimately replace or improve traditional clinical trials is the big question. The workshop held on December 3, 2019 at Health Canada included presenters from regulatory agencies, industry and academia. Health Canada, US FDA and European Medicine Agency presented current thinking, draft frameworks and guidance available in the public domain. While the three agencies might be at different stages of utilizing RWE for regulatory decision making, the consensus is not whether RWE would be used but when and how it can be incorporated into regulatory decision making while maintaining a high evidentiary bar. The complexity of data sourcing, curating databases, aligning on common data models, illustrated by high-profile work conducted as part of Sentinel, DSEN, OHDSI and Duke-Margolis initiatives, was presented and discussed during the workshop, creating great learning opportunities for the attendees. The design and analysis of RWE studies were compared and contrasted to those of RCTs. While there are gaps, they are closing quickly as novel analytical methods are employed and innovative ways of curating data, including natural language processing and artificial intelligence, are explored. This proceeding contains summaries of information presented by the speakers, including current highlights about the use of RWE in regulatory decision making. In the world where the uptake of “big data” in everyday life is happening at unprecedented speed, we can expect RWE to be a fast-moving area and with the potential for big impact in health-care decision making in the years to come.
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 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.015 |
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".