Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09738 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866909783245717504 |
|---|---|
| author | Eser, Umut Gozin, Yael Stallons, L. Jay Caroline, Ari Preusse, Martin Rice, Brandon Wright, Scott Robertson, Andrew |
| author_facet | Eser, Umut Gozin, Yael Stallons, L. Jay Caroline, Ari Preusse, Martin Rice, Brandon Wright, Scott Robertson, Andrew |
| contents | Background: Investigational New Drug (IND) application preparation is time-intensive and expertise-dependent, slowing early clinical development. Objective: To evaluate whether a large language model (LLM) platform (AutoIND) can reduce first-draft composition time while maintaining document quality in regulatory submissions. Methods: Drafting times for IND nonclinical written summaries (eCTD modules 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 2.6.6) generated by AutoIND were directly recorded. For comparison, manual drafting times for IND summaries previously cleared by the U.S. FDA were estimated from the experience of regulatory writers ($\geq$6 years) and used as industry-standard benchmarks. Quality was assessed by a blinded regulatory writing assessor using seven pre-specified categories: correctness, completeness, conciseness, consistency, clarity, redundancy, and emphasis. Each sub-criterion was scored 0-3 and normalized to a percentage. A critical regulatory error was defined as any misrepresentation or omission likely to alter regulatory interpretation (e.g., incorrect NOAEL, omission of mandatory GLP dose-formulation analysis). Results: AutoIND reduced initial drafting time by $\sim$97% (from $\sim$100 h to 3.7 h for 18,870 pages/61 reports in IND-1; and to 2.6 h for 11,425 pages/58 reports in IND-2). Quality scores were 69.6\% and 77.9\% for IND-1 and IND-2. No critical regulatory errors were detected, but deficiencies in emphasis, conciseness, and clarity were noted. Conclusions: AutoIND can dramatically accelerate IND drafting, but expert regulatory writers remain essential to mature outputs to submission-ready quality. Systematic deficiencies identified provide a roadmap for targeted model improvements. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2509_09738 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Human-AI Collaboration Increases Efficiency in Regulatory Writing Eser, Umut Gozin, Yael Stallons, L. Jay Caroline, Ari Preusse, Martin Rice, Brandon Wright, Scott Robertson, Andrew Artificial Intelligence Quantitative Methods I.2.7 Background: Investigational New Drug (IND) application preparation is time-intensive and expertise-dependent, slowing early clinical development. Objective: To evaluate whether a large language model (LLM) platform (AutoIND) can reduce first-draft composition time while maintaining document quality in regulatory submissions. Methods: Drafting times for IND nonclinical written summaries (eCTD modules 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 2.6.6) generated by AutoIND were directly recorded. For comparison, manual drafting times for IND summaries previously cleared by the U.S. FDA were estimated from the experience of regulatory writers ($\geq$6 years) and used as industry-standard benchmarks. Quality was assessed by a blinded regulatory writing assessor using seven pre-specified categories: correctness, completeness, conciseness, consistency, clarity, redundancy, and emphasis. Each sub-criterion was scored 0-3 and normalized to a percentage. A critical regulatory error was defined as any misrepresentation or omission likely to alter regulatory interpretation (e.g., incorrect NOAEL, omission of mandatory GLP dose-formulation analysis). Results: AutoIND reduced initial drafting time by $\sim$97% (from $\sim$100 h to 3.7 h for 18,870 pages/61 reports in IND-1; and to 2.6 h for 11,425 pages/58 reports in IND-2). Quality scores were 69.6\% and 77.9\% for IND-1 and IND-2. No critical regulatory errors were detected, but deficiencies in emphasis, conciseness, and clarity were noted. Conclusions: AutoIND can dramatically accelerate IND drafting, but expert regulatory writers remain essential to mature outputs to submission-ready quality. Systematic deficiencies identified provide a roadmap for targeted model improvements. |
| title | Human-AI Collaboration Increases Efficiency in Regulatory Writing |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence Quantitative Methods I.2.7 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09738 |