MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404387688 · doi:10.1080/17576180.2024.2411925

Harmonization of Vaccine Ligand Binding Assays Validation

2024· article· en· W4404387688 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francis Dessy, Ivo Sonderegger, Leslie Wagner, Alessandra Buoninfante, Meenu Wadhwa, Joseph Agnes, Anastasia A. Aksyuk, Angelique Baclin, Marie Bonhomme, Shane Cloney‐Clark, Bart Corsaro, João Tavares Neto, Louis Fries, Luc Gagnon, Fabio Garofolo, Peter C. Giardina, Tina Green, Núria Guimerà, Shannon Harris, Roy Helmy, James W. Huleatt, Akiko Ishii‐Watabe, R. J. Jaeger, Dewal Jani, Sarah Janssen, Lisa Kierstead, Karen W. Makar, Jean‐Claude Marshall, Christian Mayer, Dulcyane Neiva Mendes, Rocio Murphy, Sankeetha Nadarajah, Katrina M. Nolan, Joyce S. Plested, Ingrid L. Scully, Therese Solstad, Jeroen N. Stoop, Charles Y. Tan, Thorsten Verch, Deidre Wilkins, Arron Xu, Lingyi Zheng, Mingzhu Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioanalysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaMinistry of Health, Labour and WelfareU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSanofi
KeywordsHarmonizationComputational biologyChemistryBiochemical engineeringVirologyChromatographyBiologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The urgency and importance of organizing a global effort to harmonize clinical assay validation specific to the vaccine industry was identified during the drafting of the 2020 White Paper in Bioanalysis due to the lack of clarity and regulatory guidance/guidelines in vaccine immunoassay validation. Indeed, the Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (WRIB) issues the White Paper in Bioanalysis yearly, which is one of the high-profile articles of the Bioanalysis Journal focused on detailed discussions and recommendations on vaccine assay validation. Since 2017, participation in the WRIB working groups by vaccine assay validation experts and regulators has rapidly increased due to its unique format where industry leaders and regulators can meet and exchange ideas on topics of interest to both groups. In early 2021, Vaccine manufacturers approached WRIB for sponsoring/supporting the authorship and publication of an overarching vaccine assay validation document based on the 2017–2020 discussions and consensus starting from immunogenicity assays first and followed by future papers on molecular and cell-based assay validation. Using industry and WRIB vaccine network, a vaccine immunogenicity assay validation working group was assembled consisting of 16 companies. The work on the first white paper started officially in April 2021 focusing on Vaccine LBA Validation (Part 1), and the drafting of Vaccine LBA Development (Part 2) and Vaccine LBA Monitoring & Transfer (Part 3) are presently ongoing and expected to be published shortly after this paper. Moreover, recommendations on Vaccine Cell-Based Assays Validation (ELISpot and Flow cytometry) and Vaccine Molecular Assays Validation (PCR, NGS, NanoString) are also on the WRIB publications agenda and the drafting is planned to start in mid-2024. For too long, vaccine scientists have not had a clear validation guidance for clinical vaccine immunogenicity assays. We hope that this common effort will help close this regulatory gap.

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)0.278
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2780.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.008

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioanalysisSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207