A survey of regulatory recommendations for waivers of in vivo bioequivalence studies of generic products for certain dosage forms by participating regulators and organisations of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme. Part 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
bioequivalence study. A biowaiver may be granted not only based on the Biopharmaceutics Classifications System (BCS) but also for many immediate-release dosage forms based on pre-defined criteria. The current paper summarises the results from a survey of the biowaiver requirements for cutaneous/topical products (topical solutions, gels, suspensions, ointments, and creams), ear/otic and ophthalmic solutions and suspensions, enemas in solution and suspension, and vaginal solid dosage forms and suppositories defined by the participants of the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP). A review of the results from the survey indicates that there is a trend towards convergence when the dosage forms are less complex; however, the most common approach used by each of the participants was a case-by-case approach given that most participants do not have well-defined guidelines to support all possible scenarios. Notwithstanding the differences, disseminating information is the first step towards regulatory convergence regarding biowaivers for certain dosage forms and will be useful for pharmaceutical companies currently developing generic medicinal products for countries represented by IPRP participants.
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 | 0.043 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".