MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415237433 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1679611

Reimagining drug regulation in the age of AI: a framework for the AI-enabled Ecosystem for Therapeutics

2025· article· en· W4415237433 on OpenAlexaff
Rominder Singh, Karen Zhou, Jared R. Auclair

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegulatory scienceAgency (philosophy)Regulatory agencyRegulatory focus theoryRegulatory reformConceptual frameworkRegulatory affairs

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into drug development and regulatory decision-making; however, the regulatory landscape governing these technologies remains fragmented. While agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have begun issuing guidance on AI applications in human therapeutics, these frameworks differ substantially in scope, terminology, and application. This lack of alignment complicates regulatory interpretation, creates barriers to regulatory coordination, and impedes equitable access to AI-enabled therapies. In this article, we introduce the AI-enabled Ecosystem for Therapeutics (AI2ET) framework, a conceptual and policy-oriented model designed to support the federation of regulatory knowledge and promote regulatory alignment. The AI2ET shifts regulatory focus from individual AI-generated products to the broader AI-enabled systems, platforms, and processes that underpin drug development. This approach addresses current regulatory gaps in AI oversight by articulating clear definitions of the components that constitute the ecosystem, establishing risk-based decision-making pathways, and finally offering regulatory guidance to navigate the ecosystem. The article offers six key policy recommendations that include strengthening international cooperation, establishing shared regulatory definitions, and investing in regulatory capacity building. By laying down a conceptual foundation for regulatory science-based oversight of AI in therapeutic development, the AI2ET framework offers a path forward for inclusive, effective, and equitable oversight of AI in regulating human therapeutics.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207