Mechanism of action, potency and efficacy: considerations for cell therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most challenging aspects of developing advanced cell therapy products (CTPs) is defining the mechanism of action (MOA), potency and efficacy of the product. This perspective examines these concepts and presents helpful ways to think about them through the lens of metrology. A logical framework for thinking about MOA, potency and efficacy is presented that is consistent with the existing regulatory guidelines, but also accommodates what has been learned from the 27 US FDA-approved CTPs. Available information regarding MOA, potency and efficacy for the 27 FDA-approved CTPs is reviewed to provide background and perspective. Potency process and efficacy process charts are introduced to clarify and illustrate the relationships between six key concepts: MOA, potency, potency test, efficacy, efficacy endpoint and efficacy endpoint test. Careful consideration of the meaning of these terms makes it easier to discuss the challenges of correlating potency test results with clinical outcomes and to understand how the relationships between the concepts can be misunderstood during development and clinical trials. Examples of how a product can be "potent but not efficacious" or "not potent but efficacious" are presented. Two example applications of the framework compare how MOA is assessed in cell cultures, animal models and human clinical trials and reveals the challenge of establishing MOA in humans. Lastly, important considerations for the development of potency tests for a CTP are discussed. These perspectives can help product developers set appropriate expectations for understanding a product's MOA and potency, avoid unrealistic assumptions and improve communication among team members during the development of CTPs.
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 | 0.043 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".