MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401551831 · doi:10.1089/aid.2024.0042

Strengthening the Application of the DAIDS GCLP Guidelines: The Implementation of an Integrated Laboratory Oversight Framework

2024· article· en· W4401551831 on OpenAlexaff
Loc Thi My Nguyen, Anne Leach, Estelle Piwowar‐Manning, Mark A. Marzinke, Allan Levesque, Claudine Gregorio, Kristen Skinner, Tiri Towindo, Heidi Hanes, Kwabena Sarpong, Christian Kasongo, Natasha Samsunder, Grace M. Aldrovandi, Kathie G Ferbas, Andres Engelbrecht, Michael Stirewalt, Emily Anyango, Sasiwimol Ubolyam, Pamela Lankford-Turner, Marcella Sarzotti‐Kelsoe

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsHIV Legal Network
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesJohns Hopkins UniversityWorld Health Organization
KeywordsProcess managementBusinessComputer scienceEngineering managementRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Division of AIDS (DAIDS) Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) Guidelines establish a framework to guide the oversight of laboratories supporting DAIDS-sponsored clinical research or trials. Compliance with these guidelines promotes data reliability, validity, and safety of the clinical research or trial participants and laboratory staff and ensures adherence to regulatory requirements. Acknowledgment and adoption of the DAIDS GCLP Guidelines are critical in building laboratory capacity and preparedness for conducting clinical trials. In collaboration with DAIDS, laboratory experts support the implementation of the DAIDS Integrated Laboratory Oversight Framework (Framework) activities. This article describes the implementation of the GCLP Guidelines, the Framework activities, and the coordinated efforts to strengthen laboratory performance. The Framework activities include four components: Quality Assurance Oversight, GCLP Audits, GCLP Training, and Laboratory Quality Improvement. Comparison of GCLP Guidelines with other regulations or standards, including U.S. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments regulation 42 CFR 493, College of American Pathologists, World Health Organization GCLP, and International Organization for Standardization, ISO 15189:2012 standards, highlighted the differences and similarities to guide integration and harmonization efforts. Processes related to the Framework activities are outlined in detail, including key data derived from the managed activities of over 175 laboratories worldwide. Via the evolution of the DAIDS GCLP Guidelines and laboratory oversight workflows, the laboratories participating in DAIDS-sponsored clinical research and trials have successfully participated in internal and external regulatory audits. The collaborative and integrated oversight approach promotes knowledge-sharing and accountability to support the implementation of the DAIDS GCLP Guidelines and compliance monitoring. Lessons learned have helped with the implementation of the DAIDS integrated laboratory oversight approach and quality oversight programs at multiple laboratories worldwide.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Research and Human RetrovirusesSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207