A BRIEF REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereoisomers are molecules that are identical to one another in terms of atomic constitu-tion and sequence of covalent bonds, but which differ in the three dimensional arrangement of atoms. There is a growing belief that enantioselectivity in the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of a drug is not a rare phenomenon, but occurs rather frequently. Because of differences in pharmacological activity between enantiomers, race-mic mixtures can, in theory, be seen as combination products. Recognition of potential differences of pharmaceutical enantiomers has led to increasing attention by regulatory agencies to developments with such compounds. This paper will briefly review the scien-tific and regulatory guidance provided for the development and approval of chiral drugs in Canada, and relate this to the requirements currently in place in the United States and Europe. Key Words: Chiral; Pharmaceuticals; Guidelines; Regulatory; Stereoisomers INTRODUCTION For a molecule with n chiral centers, there may be up to 2n stereoisomers. Within stereo-STEREOISOMERS ARE MOLECULES isomer classification, there are molecules that are identical to one another in terms of
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
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".