MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787131 · doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2025.107114

Calibration transfer and maintenance in the pharmaceutical industry: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4409787131 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Ramadan, Giverny Robert, Romain Kersaudy, Maroua Rouabah, Nicolas Abatzoglou, Ryan Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPharmaceutical industryCalibrationSystematic reviewBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceManagement scienceEngineeringMEDLINEMedicineChemistryPharmacologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective calibration transfer is essential for ensuring accurate and reliable measurements on altering one or more components of spectroscopic measurements, including the spectrometers, sample characteristics, environmental conditions, and measurement settings. Taking a unique perspective, this review aims to provide a guide for pharmaceutical researchers, offering insights into calibration transfer and maintenance applications. The systematic review lists all documented applications of calibration transfer and maintenance algorithms in the pharmaceutical industry up until the time of manuscript preparation. These studies covered various types of calibration transfer scenarios, including intravendor, intervendor, different spectral technologies, and transfers from benchtop to miniaturized instruments. Calibration maintenance cases revealed sources of variation like production scale, temperature changes, sample physical properties, and varied dynamic nature of processes. The review links algorithms to practice while highlighting research gaps. These gaps include limited applications on semi-solid or liquid pharmaceutical products, limited inline applications, and a lack of consensus on best practices. By addressing these shortcomings, this review contributes to advancing calibration transfer in the pharmaceutical industry, supporting precise measurements, improved process control, and the development of high-quality pharmaceutical products.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.505
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.025 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationFrench-language works237,207