Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective to Improve Development of Drugs for Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite recent approvals for new drugs to treat adults with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, there are only two approved advanced treatment options [infliximab and adalimumab] for children with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. There are many potential new therapies being developed for adult and paediatric IBD. Moreover, regulatory agencies in both the European Union and USA have processes in place to support the early planning and initiation of paediatric studies. Nevertheless, unacceptable delays in approvals for use of drugs in children persist, with an average 7-year gap, or longer, between authorization of new IBD drugs for adults and children. METHODS: A 2-day virtual meeting was held during April 14-15, 2021 for multi-stakeholders [clinical academics, patient community, pharmaceutical companies and regulators] to discuss their perspectives on paediatric drug development for IBD. RESULTS: The multi-stakeholder group presented, discussed and proposed actions to achieve expediting the approval of new drugs in development for paediatric IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative action points for all stakeholders are required to make progress and facilitate new drug development for children with IBD.
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 | 0.044 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".