Cross-border dialogue: An international survey of regulators on phage therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With antimicrobial resistance as a worldwide public health concern, bacteriophage (phage) therapy (PT) may help treat bacterial infections. However, given its particularities compared with traditional small molecule drugs, there are variations in how it is regulated worldwide. Regulators are key players governing PT, yet their perspectives have been largely unexplored. Here, we present findings from the first international survey aimed at capturing the current and future landscape of PT according to regulators. We distributed the survey to members of the second European Union-Joint Action on Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare-Associated Infections and individually contacted regulators. Results were collected between October 30, 2024 and March 26, 2025. Twenty-three respondents represented twenty-one countries across Europe, North America, Africa, and Oceania (response rate 67%). Phages or PT were reported as being mentioned in only three national action plans (13%). Nearly half of the respondents declared no prior involvement in phage-related regulatory processes in the past decade, and 32% were uncertain if phages have ever been used therapeutically in their country. Among those who were aware of previous in-country PT, single-use cases dominated, with 27% of respondents acknowledging this as a resource burden (compared to other regulatory applications). Some regulators reported that adapted frameworks are being explored for PT, while one indicated a new framework was being considered. These results underscore that globally major steps aimed at increasing awareness, engagement, and collaboration on best practices amongst regulators are still required to clarify and improve clinical access pathways for PT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".