MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385376287 · doi:10.1016/j.vascn.2023.107300

Safety pharmacology 2023 and implementation of the ICH E14/S7B Q&A guidance document

2023· editorial· en· W4385376287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael K. Pugsley, Yevgeniya E. Koshman, C. Michael Foley, Brett R. Winters, Simon Authier, Michael J. Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafety pharmacologyClinical pharmacologyPharmacologyInduced pluripotent stem cellMedicineInotropeNeurosciencePsychologyChemistryInternal medicineDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This editorial prefaces the annual themed issue on safety pharmacology (SP) methods published since 2004 in the Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods (JPTM). We highlight here the content derived from the recent 2022 Safety Pharmacology Society (SPS) and Canadian Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CSPT) joint meeting held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The meeting also generated 179 abstracts (reproduced in the current volume of JPTM). As in previous years the manuscripts reflect various areas of innovation in SP including a comparison of the sensitivity of cross-over and parallel study designs for QTc assessment, use of human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hi-PSC) neuronal cell preparations for use in neuropharmacological safety screening, and hiPSC derived cardiac myocytes in assessing inotropic adversity. With respect to the latter, we anticipate the emergence of a large data set of positive and negative controls that will test whether the imperative to miniaturize, humanize and create a high throughput process is offset by any loss of precision and accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacological and Toxicological MethodsSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207