MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390572338 · doi:10.22270/ijdra.v11i4.631

A Review on Approval and Registration Process of Medical Devices in Canada and India

2023· review· en· W4390572338 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gaurav V. Patil, Ganesh D. Basarkar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessHealth technologyPopulationMedicineHealth careOrder (exchange)MarketingMedical emergencyFinanceEnvironmental healthEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A medical device is any device or material used to promote human health. Due to an increase in the prevalence of chronic diseases, irregular health examinations, and sedentary lifestyles, as well as an increase in cases of obesity, diabetes, neuro-based disorders, heart diseases, and chronic diseases linked to lifestyle disorders, the use of medical devices is increasing. There are many medical devices in use today, and different rules and regulations apply to their marketing in various nations. To be sold on the market, a medical device needs to have its marketing authorization granted by the appropriate country's regulatory organization. Medical device-based therapeutic therapy is offering technologically sophisticated alternatives for the management of a number of ailments. The ministry of health and family welfare as well as science and technology in India rely heavily on the CDSCO as their primary medical regulating body. This article has been produced to discuss how medical devices are approved and registered, as well as the recent market expansion. Medical equipment sales are strong but profitable in Canada. It has one-fifth the population of Brazil, yet spends nearly as much on healthcare every year. As a result, rules and regulations must be in place to oversee the sale of such products. standardized medical equipment in order to facilitate their swift approval as well as the registration of medical devices, registration across all markets is crucial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Drug Regulatory AffairsSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207