ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Developing and validating a regulatory science competency framework for immune cell therapy: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), particularly immune cell therapies, present distinctive regulatory challenges due to biological variability, evolving manufacturing processes, and uncertainty throughout the product lifecycle. Existing competency frameworks for regulatory science are predominantly generalist and may not adequately capture the domain-specific competencies required for immune cell therapy. Objective: To develop and validate a consensus-based competency framework for regulatory science professionals in immune cell therapy. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, comprising a multi-source literature review, preliminary expert consultation, semi-structured expert interviews, and a two-round Delphi consensus process. Experts representing academia, industry, regulatory authorities, and government/public-sector organizations participated in the preliminary consultation and interviews ( Results: The final framework comprised nine core competencies and 32 sub-competencies organized into three areas: Scientific and Regulatory Foundations, Strategic Application of Regulatory Science, and Regulatory Leadership and Responsibility. High retention agreement (95%-100%) indicated the stability of the framework. Sub-competencies related to leadership, ethics, and higher-order judgment received relatively lower ratings for educational applicability and measurability but were retained because of their conceptual importance. Conclusion: This study presents a domain-specific competency framework that conceptualizes regulatory competence in immune cell therapy as an integrative and adaptive capability. The framework provides a practical foundation for competency-based training, assessment, and regulatory science workforce development in immune cell therapy and related ATMPs.
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.