MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Challenges and Pathways in Regulating Next-Gen Biological Therapies

2025· article· en· W4409814932 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Surendra Agrawal, Sunita Vaidya, Jitendra Patel, Pranita Jirvankar, Pravina Gurjar

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketing authorizationMedicineGenetic enhancementCommercializationClinical trialAuthorizationCell therapyGenome editingDiseaseBiotechnologyBioinformaticsStem cellIntensive care medicineCRISPRGeneBusinessBiologyPathologyGeneticsComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current medicine could benefit from gene and cell therapies for genetic defects, cancer, and degenerative disorders. These therapies modify genetic material or biological components. CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, stem cell, and CAR-T treatments are examples. Complex products need rigorous regulations to ensure quality, efficacy, and patient safety. OBJECTIVES: This paper discusses international gene and cell-based treatment regulatory regimes, highlighting key issues and recent developments. It also includes gene and cell-based therapy classes and mechanisms. METHOD: The publications on gene and cell therapy challenges and their regulatory approvals in the US, Europe, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Canada, and China were collected over the last 20 years from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar and analyzed to determine the differences. RESULTS: Gene treatments correct genetic defects or disease processes by adding, removing, or changing cell genetic information. In contrast, cell-based therapies restore damaged tissues with modified or unmodified cells. Highly customized and patient-specific drugs make regulatory monitoring challenging. US FDA CBER controls gene and cell-based therapies. Before clinical trials, these biologic drugs must file BLAs for market approval and INDs. DISCUSSION: FDA's Breakthrough Therapy and Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designations accelerate biological development. The EMA oversees EU Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products. ATMP quality, safety, and efficacy are CAT's top priorities. The Conditional Marketing Authorization process expedites access to life-threatening disease medicines while the MAA regulates them. Japan's PMDA's Conditional Time-Limited Approval for regenerative medicines provides early commercialization and rigorous post-market supervision. Similarly, each country has adopted some ways to expedite the approval of biologicals. Geneediting drugs require specialized methods, long-term follow-up, and better safety to avoid offtarget effects. GMPs ensure production uniformity, sterility, and safety, complicating manufacturing and quality control. CONCLUSION: The review concludes that there is a need for worldwide regulatory harmonization and regulatory framework developments, including R.W.E., adaptive pathways, and personalization of biologics.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Pharmaceutical BiotechnologySame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207