MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409838841 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127170

Advancing regulatory dialogue: In silico models for improved vaccine biomanufacturing - an expert meeting report

2025· article· en· W4409838841 on OpenAlexaff
Irina Meln, Wim Van Molle, Mónica Vélez, Greger Abrahamsen, Koen Brusselmans, Éric Calvosa, Antonio Gaetano Cardillo, Didier Clénet, Caroline Forestieri, Krist V. Gernaey, Marcel H. N. Hoefnagel, John Bagterp Jørgensen, Pierre Lebrun, Laurent Natalis, Bernt Nilsson, Volker Öppling, Julius Pollinger, Andrea Rayat, Daniel Reem, Michelle Rubbrecht, Johannes Schmölder, Timothy Schofield, Dean Smith, Stefanie Timmins, Eric von Lieres, Mats Welin, Daniel G. Bracewell

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersInnovative Medicines InitiativeEuropean CommissionEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
KeywordsBiomanufacturingIn silicoComputational biologyVirologyBiologyComputer scienceBiotechnologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On March 30, 2022, Inno4Vac, a public-private partnership funded by the IMI2/EU/EFPIA Joint Undertaking (IMI2 JU), organised a hybrid workshop, titled "Regulatory Dialogue for Road Maps of Implementation of New Tools in Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Dossiers." This event brought together modellers, regulatory experts, and academic and industry professionals specialising in vaccine process and product development. The sessions discussed key parameters and requirements for model development and verification relevant to vaccine biomanufacturing and shelf life. The stability model was highlighted as having the most significant impact on the common technical document (CTD) due to its potential to streamline data requirements. Regulators are open to considering reliable reduced stability data packages (3-12 months) instead of the standard 36 months, potentially expediting product availability. Appropriate study design reduces uncertainty and therefore the risk of making poor decisions. Upstream models are further from the final product, and their role in the control strategy of the product will define their level of risk and, therefore, requirements for validation and inclusion of information in the file. Regulators may consider downstream models high risk as these can be associated with the monitoring and/or control of critical quality attributes and/or be involved in the release of a product. However, requirements for validation and/or dossier content should always be linked to the intended use of the model and its overall role in the control strategy as per the new EMA Quality Innovation Group Considerations regarding Pharmaceutical Process Models. The success of these models hinges on manufacturers providing enough quality data to prove their accuracy in representing real-world processes. Proactive engagement with regulators, supported by detailed evidence, can foster regulator understanding of new models and potentially lead to new guidelines and pathways for model acceptance.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in InsectsFrench-language works237,207