MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409391793 · doi:10.14573/altex.2503261

Considerations from the pharmaceutical industry (IQ MPS affiliate) workshop on animal microphysiological systems and 3Rs in drug development

2025· article· en· W4409391793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick J. Devine, Manti Guha, Jason E. Ekert, Anna K. Kopec, J Gosset, May S. Freag, Matthew P. Wagoner, Philip Hewitt, Kate Harris, Myriam Lemmens, Nakissa Sadrieh, Donna L. Mendrick, David M. Stresser, Leslie J Valencia, Paul C. Brown, Ronald L. Wange, Amy M. Avila, Kevin A. Ford, Robert Geiger, Jessica A. Bonzo, John P. Gleeson, Christine C. Orozco, Qun Li, Chris Hinckley, Reiner Class, Josephine M. McAuliffe, Amy Tran-Guzman, Francesco Nevelli, Gonçalo Gamboa da Costa, Dayton M. Petibone, Tomomi Kiyota, Qiang Shi, Rhiannon N. Hardwick

Bibliographic record

VenueALTEX · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmaceutical industryDrug developmentBusinessDrugEngineeringMedicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most complex in vitro models (CIVM) and microphysiological systems (MPS) are composed of human cells, with the goal of evaluating diseases, efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic questions specifically for humans. The hope with CIVM/MPS is that they will eventually improve our predictivity for clinical responses and reduce or replace animal use in research, supporting the 3Rs concept of only using animals in research when necessary. Given the potential of animal-based models to advance this field by comparing existing in vivo animal data with new animal-based MPS responses, there are currently few CIVM and MPS utilizing animal tissues. Animal-based MPS may also have specific utility for cross-species comparisons or species-specific mechanistic questions on zoonotic diseases, and therapies for animals. Animal-based MPS may help expand in vitro-to in vivo correlations, advance the field and establish confidence in the predictive nature of such platforms. The IQ MPS-FDA workshop provided an interactive venue for pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), NC3Rs (UK), Health Canada, NIH/NCATS, NIHS and PMDA (Japan), Danish Medicines Agency, European Commission, NIEHS/ICEATM, HHS, NIST, EURL ECVAM, and the IQ MPS Affiliate, a collaboration of pharmaceutical companies to jointly discuss considerations of animal-based MPS and applications where animal-based MPS are of potential value. Plain language summaryMicrophysiological systems are complex in vitro models that recapitulate human or animal physiology by mimicking their key biological processes and disease states. These models need extensive validation to be utilized routinely as drug discovery tools. The IQ MPS Affiliate comprised of 26 pharmaceutical companies held a joint workshop with the FDA, other regulators and the NC3Rs to address current challenges in the MPS field and discuss context of use for animal-cell based MPS in drug discovery.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.010

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueALTEXSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207