ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Specification-driven acceptance criteria for validation of biopharmaceutical processes.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Rapid Titer Assay for the Oncolytic Virus oHSV2 Expressing a PD-L1/CD3 Bispecific Antibody.Viruses · 2026Article
- Holistic Design of Experiments Using an Integrated Process Model.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intermediate acceptance criteria are the foundation for developing control strategies in process validation stage 1 in the pharmaceutical industry. At drug substance or product level such intermediate acceptance criteria for quality are available and referred to as specification limits. However, it often remains a challenge to define acceptance criteria for intermediate process steps. Available guidelines underpin the importance of intermediate acceptance criteria, because they are an integral part for setting up a control strategy for the manufacturing process. The guidelines recommend to base the definition of acceptance criteria on the entirety of process knowledge. Nevertheless, the guidelines remain unclear on how to derive such limits. Within this contribution we aim to present a sound data science methodology for the definition of intermediate acceptance criteria by putting the guidelines recommendations into practice (ICH Q6B, 1999). By using an integrated process model approach, we leverage manufacturing data and experimental data from small scale to derive intermediate acceptance criteria. The novelty of this approach is that the acceptance criteria are based on pre-defined out-of-specification probabilities, while also considering manufacturing variability in process parameters. In a case study we compare this methodology to a conventional +/- 3 standard deviations (3SD) approach and demonstrate that the presented methodology is superior to conventional approaches and provides a solid line of reasoning for justifying them in audits and regulatory submission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.