Implementation workshop of WHO guidelines on evaluation of malaria vaccines: Current regulatory concepts and issues related to vaccine quality, Pretoria, South Africa 07 Nov 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the quality, safety and efficacy of recombinant malaria vaccines targeting the pre-erythrocytic and blood stages of Plasmodium falciparum were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization in 2012 to provide guidance on the quality, nonclinical and clinical aspects of recombinant malaria vaccines. A WHO workshop was organised to facilitate implementation into African (national/regional) regulatory practices, of the regulatory evaluation principles outlined in the guidelines regarding quality aspects. The workshop was used also to share knowledge and experience on regulatory topics of chemistry, manufacturing and control with a focus on vaccines through presentations and an interactive discussion using a case study approach. The basic principles and concepts of vaccine quality including consistency of production, quality control and manufacturing process were presented and discussed in the meeting. By reviewing and practicing a case study, better understanding on the relationship between consistency of production and batch release tests of an adjuvanted pre-erythrocytic recombinant malaria vaccine was reached. The case study exercise was considered very useful to understand regulatory evaluation principles of vaccines and a suggestion was made to WHO to provide such practices also through its Global Learning Opportunities for Vaccine Quality programme.
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 | 0.034 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".