MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390571917 · doi:10.22270/ijdra.v11i4.633

A Review on Next Generation eCTD – eCTD v4.0

2023· review· en· W4390571917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nikkitha Sudesamithiran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationXMLProcess (computing)BusinessRegulatory authorityComputer scienceInformation exchangeProduct (mathematics)AccountingWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceTelecommunicationsPublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

eCTD 4.0 is the first major upgrade of eCTD in over a decade, designed to meet the objective of using a single electronic message standard for exchange of regulatory information through internationally approved standards. It is based on the Health Level Seven (HL7) Standard called Regulatory Product Submissions (RPS). HL7 is an ISO-certified standards body that builds health standards, specifically for North America but has been adopted worldwide. With RPS, the regulatory information is transferred in the form of an xml message that is represented by the colour coded R-MIM (Refined Message Information Model) diagram which efficiently describes each content of the regulatory data to be processed and exchanged between sponsors and regulatory authorities. The International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) has adopted the RPS standard as basis for eCTD version 4.0, and implementation guides for this format have been issued by ICH, US FDA, Health Canada, Japan PMDA, and EU EMA. ICH has built requirements into RPS that significantly enhances the regulatory submission and review process for sponsors and regulatory officials in the eCTD v4.0 version. This review provides a brief outlook on the new eCTD v4.0 standard.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.366
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Drug Regulatory AffairsSame topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207