MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407382768 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1539787

Requirements and special considerations for drug trials with children across six jurisdictions: 2. Ethics review in the regulatory approval process

2025· article· en· W4407382768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Breanne Stewart, Pirkko Lepola, Gunter F. Egger, Faisal Ali, Albert J. Allen, Alysha Croker, Andrew Davidson, Pamela Dicks, Saul N. Faust, Dionna Green, Collin A. Hovinga, Ágnes Klein, Robyn Langham, Hidefumi Nakamura, Laura Pioppo, Shaun Ramroop, Michiyo Sakiyama, I Villa, Sato Junko, Donna L. Snyder, M. Turner, Sarah Zaidi, Kanecia O. Zimmerman, Thierry Lacaze‐Masmonteil

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTimelineEuropean unionClinical trialAgency (philosophy)Political scienceMedicineRegulatory affairsInstitutional review boardFamily medicineBusinessPublic relationsPublic administrationGeographyPsychiatryPathologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Conducting clinical drug trials (CTs) with children presents several challenges. A major challenge is the need to enroll participants at multiple sites across different jurisdictions. Recruiting the required number of children within a reasonable timeframe requires the study to be reviewed by Research Ethics Boards (REB) or Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at multiple sites across various jurisdictions. This work, undertaken by the Working Group (WG) on International Collaborations at the European Network of Pediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA) aims to describe the research ethics review requirements including any pediatric specific requirements, as well as current or upcoming changes across six jurisdictions - the European Union (EU), United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Canada, Japan, and Australia. Methods: An open questionnaire developed by the WG and directed at both the Competent Authorities (CA) and the national pediatric clinical trial networks arranged by jurisdictions. Results: A synopsis of the current regulatory requirements covers centralized versus independent review, comparisons between investigator initiated and industry sponsored clinical trials, timelines, review board members requirements and the consenting/assent process for clinical trial (CT) applications, application submission processes and application requirements for each of the six jurisdictions. It also describes changes currently or soon to be implemented in some jurisdictions. Conclusion: This environmental scan highlights the differences in ethics review for CTs in pediatric medicine development across six jurisdictions. While there is a growing trend for centralized ethics review, it is not universally permitted due to institutional, state/provincial, or national policies. Even where central review is allowed, local review may still be required for vulnerable populations like children. Harmonized and centralized ethics reviews offer advantages such as expert pediatric reviewers and efficient and consistent evaluations.

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)0.007
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207