Investigation of New Drug Submission Documents for the Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Stereoisomeric Drugs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was performed to investigate the current regulatory guidances of safety and efficacy evaluation for the approval of stereoisomeric drugs in Korea and US. According to the regulatory guidelines in major countries (EU, Canada, US), the important categories for the development of stereoisomeric drugs are classified as 1) development of a single enantiomer as a new active substances 2) development of a racemate as a new active substance 3) development of a new single enantiomer from an approved racemate. For this study, domestic regulatory documents for current guidelines of stereoisomeric drugs were investigated. Also four typical stereoisomeric drugs for three categories were chosen to investigate the new drug submission documents of KFDA and FDA for the safety and efficacy evaluation of stereoisomeric drugs. It is expected that these comparative results between KFDA and FDA will be useful for the safety and efficacy for the regulatory approval of stereoisomeric drugs in Korea.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it