MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409466368 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1542408

Requirements and special considerations for drug trials with children across six jurisdictions: 1. Clinical trial application review in the regulatory approval process

2025· article· en· W4409466368 on OpenAlexafffundabout
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
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsClinical trialLegislatureEuropean unionRegulatory affairsAgency (philosophy)MedicineAuthorizationRegulatory sciencePolitical scienceBusinessFamily medicinePublic administrationLawPathologyComputer scienceInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Conducting clinical trials (CTs) with children presents several challenges. A major challenge is the need to enrol participants at multiple sites across different jurisdictions. Regardless of whether the trials involve children, adults, or both, CTs need to meet separate Competent Authority (CA) requirements to proceed in each participating country. 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 regulatory requirements including any specific to pediatrics, 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 CA and the national pediatric clinical trial networks arranged by jurisdictions. Results: A synopsis of the current legislative and regulatory requirements for CTs applications, application submission processes and application requirements is presented for each of the six jurisdictions. Requirements were found to be mostly consistent across jurisdictions. No difference was found in processes for CTs submission, review, and authorization for pediatric CTs vs. CTs in adults. However, there are additional Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board requirements for clinical trials including children. Some jurisdictions are considering adopting a risk-based approach, inspired by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommendations on Governance. Changes currently or soon to be implemented in some jurisdictions are also described. Conclusions: Regulators from the jurisdictions represented in this WG are collaborating to facilitate regulatory harmonization and foster international alignment of pediatric CTs. By interacting with their respective regulatory bodies and developing expertise in their jurisdiction's regulatory requirements, national pediatric networks can support both academic and industry sponsors in navigating the regulatory process for CTs.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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