Proof of concept
| Completion status: Been started, but most of the work is still to be done. |
"Evidence that demonstrates that a business model or idea is feasible"[1] is called proof of concept.
| Educational level: this is a secondary education resource. |
| Educational level: this is a tertiary (university) resource. |
| Educational level: this is a research resource. |
An idea is also a concept.
| Resource type: this resource is an article. |
| Resource type: this resource contains a lecture or lecture notes. |
| Subject classification: this is a semantics resource. |
| Subject classification: this is a technology resource . |
Contents |
Notation [edit]
Notation: let the symbol Def. indicate that a definition is following.
Notation: let the symbols between [ and ] be replacement for that portion of a quoted text.
Universals [edit]
To help with definitions, their meanings and intents, there is the learning resource theory of definition.
Def. evidence that demonstrates that a concept is possible is called proof of concept.
Def. "[a] short and/or incomplete realization of a certain method or idea to demonstrate its feasibility"[2] is called a proof of concept.
Structure [edit]
The proof-of-concept structure consists of
- background,
- procedures,
- findings, and
- interpretation.[3]
The findings demonstrate a statistically systematic change from the status quo or the control group.
"Proof of Concept PoC refers to early clinical drug development, conventionally divided into Phase I and Phase IIa."[4]
"Phase I is typically conducted in 10-20 healthy volunteers who are given single doses or short courses of treatment (e.g., up to 2 weeks). Studies in this Phase aim to show that the new drug has some of the desired clinical activity (e.g., that an experimental antihypertensive drug actually has some effect on reducing blood pressure), that it can be tolerated when given to humans, and to give guidance as to dose levels that are worthy of further study. Other Phase I studies aim to investigate how the new drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolised and excreted (so-called ADME studies)."[4]
"Phase IIa is typically conducted in up to 100 patients with the disease of interest. Studies in this Phase aim to show that the new drug has a useful amount of the desired clinical activity (e.g., that an experimental antihypertensive drug reduces blood pressure by a useful amount), that it can be tolerated when given to humans in the longer term, and to investigate which dose levels might be most suitable for eventual marketing."[4]
"A decision is made at this point as to whether to progress the drug into later development, or if it should be dropped."[4]
"[A] proof-of-concept prototype is used in the initial stages of design."[5]
Clinical trial [edit]
"However, definitive proof of concept would require prospective clinical trial evidence that demonstrates that optimization of dyslipidemia would result in a reduction in risk from the complications of atherosclerosis."[6]
"[F]our volunteers infected with HIV [are] on highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) [which is intensified] with subcutaneous enfuvirtide ... [and supplemented by] oral valproic acid ... [L]atent infection [is quantified] before and after augmented treatment by limiting-dilution culture of resting CD4+ T cells after ex-vivo activation. The frequency of resting cell infection was stable before addition of enfuvirtide and valproic acid, but declined thereafter."[3]
Proof of market [edit]
"The "any part" clause, however, applies to charges of monopolization as well as to attempts to monopolize, and it is beyond doubt that the former requires proof of market power in a relevant market."[7]
Proof of mechanism [edit]
"Proof of Mechanism or PoM relates to the earliest stages of drug development, often pre-clinical (i.e., before the drug is given to humans, or before given to research animals). It could be based on showing that the drug interacts with the intended molecular receptor or enzyme, and/or affects cell biochemistry in the desired manner and direction. A decision is made at this point as to whether to progress the drug into later development, or if it should be dropped."[4]
"Incorporating tracking studies into clinical trials of cell-based therapy at the earliest stage can provide proof of mechanism of the therapy and permit evaluation of the many contributory variables, even on a patient-by-patient basis."[8]
"[B]iochemical markers [may be used] for early proof of mechanism"[9]
"One early “proof of mechanism” study of farglitazar, a non-TZD PPARγ agonist, assessed 24-h insulin and glucose profiles in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with type 2 diabetes."[10]
Proof of principle [edit]
"Proof of Principle or PoP relates to later clinical development, Phase III, typically invoilving larger numbers of patients treated at doses and durations representative of marketed use, and in randomised comparison to placebo and/or existing active drugs. They aim to show convincing, statistically significant evidence of efficacy and to give a better assessment of safety than is possible in smaller, short term studies."[4]
"A decision is made at this point as to whether the drug is effective and safe, and if so an application is made to regulatory authorities (such as the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and the European Medicines Agency) for the drug to receive permission to be marketed for use outside of clinical trials."[4]
"Clinical trials can continue after marketing authorisation has been received, for example to better delineate safety, to determine appropriate use alongside other drugs or to investigate additional uses."[4]
"[A] simple, yet stringent, “proof of principle” study to answer the question, “Can dogs be trained to detect bladder cancer more successfully than would be expected by chance alone?” [resulted in] a mean success rate of 41% (95% confidence intervals 23% to 58% under assumptions of normality, 26% to 52% using bootstrap methods), compared with 14% expected by chance alone."[11]
Proof of process [edit]
"Although the laws since 19th century mostly require "personal service" of process, and sworn "proof of process" that the defendant has received notice of trial, in many areas the parties involved in service of process get away with perjured proof of process, claiming to have delivered the legal documents which in fact have not reached defendant (but rather been discarded "in sewer")."[12]
"One obvious route often suggested in much literature is a proof-of-process approach; that is, to require front matter from students—notes, drafts, sources, and so on."[13]
"Of all the methods available to generate the “scientific evidence,” the classical inoculated pack studies are recognized to provide the ultimate proof of process adequacy for a specified set of conditions."[14]
"A proof-of-process prototype shows that the production methods and materials can successfully result in the desired product."[5]
Proof of product [edit]
A proof of product may consist of a new delivery formulation coupled to another process (product) for delivery.[15] Proof-of-product is achieved first by a proof-of-concept match between the experimental profile from the new delivery formulation plus new process of delivery to "the effect of the standard regimen" and finally by a match "for onset and duration of efficacy".[15]
"[A] proof-of-product prototype clarifies a design's physical embodiment and production feasibility."[5]
Proof of production [edit]
"A notable exception is the Climate Change Levy: [Levy Exemption Certificates] LECs are issued by the UK regulator to electricity producers both in the UK and in a number of European countries and exported to the UK, where they are purchased as proof of production of renewable energy production."[16]
"[A] proof-of-production prototype demonstrates that the complete manufacturing process is effective."[5]
Proof of relevance [edit]
"This has to include the proof of relevance, ie, that changes in the marker are correlated to changes in disease state or outcome, as well as criteria similar to those used in analytical method validation, as repeatability, reproducibility, and sensitivity."[17]
"We can become deluded into thinking that approval of peers through review processes is proof of relevance and social value."[18]
Proof of technology [edit]
"[T]he objective of a proof of technology is to determine the solution to some technical problem, such as how two systems might be integrated or that a certain throughput can be achieved with a given configuration."[4]
Def. "[a]n original object or form which is a basis for other objects, forms, or for its models and generalizations", from Wiktionary prototype, is called a prototype.
Def. "[a]n early sample or model built to test a concept or process", per prototype, is called a prototype.
Def. "[a]n instance of a category or a concept that combines its most representative attributes", after prototype, is called a prototype.
Def. "[t]o test something using the conditions that it was designed to operate under, especially out in the real world instead of in a laboratory or workshop", from Wiktionary field-test, is called "field-test", or a field test.
A "proof-of-technology prototype ... typically implements one critical scenario to exercise or stress the highest-priority requirements."[19]
"[A] proof-of-technology test demonstrates the system can be used"[20].
"The strongest proof of technology performance is based on consistency among multiple lines of evidence, all pointing to similar levels of risk reduction."[21]
See also [edit]
References [edit]
- ↑ Script error
- ↑ (November 10, 2012) "proof of concept". Wiktionary. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved on 2013-01-13.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Ginger Lehrman and Ian B Hogue, Sarah Palmer, Cheryl Jennings, Celsa A Spina, Ann Wiegand, Alan L Landay, Robert W Coombs, Douglas D Richman, John W Mellors, John M Coffin, Ronald J Bosch, David M Margolis (August 13, 2005). "Depletion of latent HIV-1 infection in vivo: a proof-of-concept study". Lancet 366 (9485): 549-55. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67098-5. Retrieved on 2012-05-09.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 (December 27, 2012) "Proof of concept". Wikipedia. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved on 2013-01-13.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Maria C. Yang (November 2005). "A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome". Design Studies 26 (6): 649-69. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.04.005. Retrieved on 2013-01-12.
- ↑ John Alan Farmer (April 2008). "Clinical trials and surrogate end points: lessons from the ENHANCE trial". Future Lipidology 3 (4): 353-7. doi:10.2217/17460875.3.4.353. Retrieved on 2011-12-05.
- ↑ Quoted in the Spectrum opinion, along with the following citations:
- United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-571, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1704, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 404, 76 S.Ct. 994, 1012, 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956).
- Lessig cited United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S., at 226, 67 S.Ct., at 1564-1565, in support of its interpretation, but Yellow Cab relied on the "any part" language to support the proposition that it is immaterial how large an amount of interstate trade is affected, or how important that part of commerce is in relation to the entire amount of that type of commerce in the Nation.
- ↑ M. Thompson, D. M. Wall, R. J. Hicks, H. M. Prince (December 2005). "In vivo tracking for cell therapies". The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 (4): 339-48. PMID 16407817. Retrieved on 2012-01-03.
- ↑ Sherif Daouti, Brian Higgins, Kenneth Kolinsky, Kathryn Packman, Huisheng Wang, Christine Rizzo, John Moliterni, Nicholas Huby, Nader Fotouhi, Mei Liu, Petra Goelzer, Harpreet K. Sandhu, Jia Kui Li, Aruna Railkar, David Heimbrook and Huifeng Niu (January 2010). "Preclinical In vivo Evaluation of Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of a Novel MEK1/2 Kinase Inhibitor RO5068760 in Multiple Tumor Models". Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 9 (1): 134-44. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0601. PMID 20053779. Retrieved on 2012-01-03.
- ↑ John A. Wagner (December 2002). "Early clinical development of pharmaceuticals for type 2 diabetes mellitus: from preclinical models to human investigation". The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 87 (12): 5362-6. doi:10.1210/jc.2002-020910. PMID 12466321. Retrieved on 2012-01-03.
- ↑ Carolyn M Willis, Susannah M Church, Claire M Guest, W Andrew Cook, Noel McCarthy, Anthea J Bransbury, Martin R T Church, and John C T Church (September 2004). "Olfactory detection of human bladder cancer by dogs: proof of principle study". BMJ 329 (7468): 712. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7468.712. PMID 15388612. Retrieved on 2012-01-03.
- ↑ (December 28, 2012) "Outlawries Bill". Wikipedia. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved on 2013-01-13.
- ↑ Dànielle DeVoss, Annette C. Rosati (August 2002). "“It wasn't me, was it?” Plagiarism and the Web". Computers and Composition 19 (2): 191-203. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00112-3. Retrieved on 2013-01-13.
- ↑ Jose Santo Goldoni, Saburo Kojima, Sherman Leonard, J. R. Heil (May 1980). "Growing spores of PA 3679 in formulations of beef heart infusion broth". Journal of Food Science 45 (3): 467-70. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb04077.x. Retrieved on 2013-01-13.
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 James Swanson; Suneel Gupta; Andrew Lam; Ira Shoulson; Marc Lerner; Nishit Modi; Elizabeth Lindemulder; Sharon Wigal (February 2003). "Development of a New Once-a-Day Formulation of Methylphenidate for the Treatment of Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder". Archives of General Psychiatry 60 (2): 204-11. Retrieved on 2012-05-09.
- ↑ (November 1, 2012) "Energy certificate". Wikipedia. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved on 2013-01-13.
- ↑ Hartmut Derendorf and Bernd Meibohm (Ferbuary 1999). "Modeling of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationships: concepts and perspectives". Pharmaceutical Research 16 (2): 176-85. doi:10.1023/A:1011907920641. Retrieved on 2012-02-15.
- ↑ Ross E. Gray (2000). "Graduate School Never Prepared Me for This: Reflections on the challenges of research based theatre". Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 1 (3): 377-90. doi:10.1080/713693161. Retrieved on 2012-02-15.
- ↑ A. Liu; I. Gorton (March/April 2003). "Accelerating COTS middleware acquisition: the i-Mate process". Software, IEEE 20 (2): 72-9. doi:10.1109/MS.2003.1184171. Retrieved on 2012-02-15.
- ↑ Rhea Wessel (January 25, 2008). "Cargo-Tracking System Combines RFID, Sensors, GSM and Satellite". RFID Journal: 1-2. Retrieved on 2012-02-15.
- ↑ P. Suresh, C. Rao, M.D. Annable and J.W. Jawitz (August 2000). E. Timothy Oppelt. ed. In Situ Flushing for Enhanced NAPL Site Remediation: Metrics for Performance Assessment, In: Abiotic In Situ Technologies for Groundwater Remediation Conference. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. pp. 105.
Further reading [edit]
- Carolyn M Willis, Susannah M Church, Claire M Guest, W Andrew Cook, Noel McCarthy, Anthea J Bransbury, Martin R T Church, and John C T Church (September 2004). "Olfactory detection of human bladder cancer by dogs: proof of principle study". BMJ 329 (7468): 712. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7468.712. PMID 15388612. Retrieved on 2012-01-03.
External links [edit]
- African Journals Online
- Bing Advanced search
- Google Books
- Google scholar Advanced Scholar Search
- JSTOR
- Lycos search
- NASA's National Space Science Data Center.
- NCBI All Databases Search
- Office of Scientific & Technical Information
- PsycNET
- PubChem Public Chemical Database
- Questia - The Online Library of Books and Journals
- SAGE journals online
- The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System
- Scirus for scientific information only advanced search
- SpringerLink
- Taylor & Francis Online
- WikiDoc The Living Textbook of Medicine
- Wiley Online Library Advanced Search
- Yahoo Advanced Web Search
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is a research project at http://en.wikiversity.org
|
Learn more about Proof of concept
|
|
Learn more about Proof of mechanism
|
|
Learn more about Proof of principle
|
|
Learn more about Proof of relevance
|
|
Learn more about Proof of technology
|