The PharmTech AI Pulse Check panel discusses why MHRA and FDA oversight of pharma AI continues past go-live, and who validates the regulators' own AI.
News|Articles|November 10, 2026
PharmTech AI Pulse Check: Who's Accountable When a Vendor's AI Model Changes?
Panelists on the PharmTech AI Pulse Check weigh a December AI playbook, EMA/MHRA moves, PCCP accountability gaps, and MCP-ready regulatory guidance.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The panel on this installment of the PharmTech AI Pulse Check zeroed in on the regulatory patchwork that pharmaceutical companies are navigating as agencies race to catch up with AI adoption, and what a rumored “playbook,” expected as soon as December, would need to deliver to actually help.
Related to this article
Jaenisch, Muraru, and Pandey discuss how regulators will audit pharma against its own AI policies and ways QA and regulatory teams can build defensible, inspection-ready AI practices.
No operator touches a CAR-T batch before demonstrating proficiency. Generative AI users should meet the same standard, and a higher one, because an AI error does not stay inside one batch.
Manish Baviskar, Hubot CDMO, on ALCOA++ data integrity, model version change control, continuous monitoring, and human sign-off.
Manish Baviskar, Hubot CDMO, explains which AI skills validation engineers need first and why AI model updates must go through GMP change control.
argenx will acquire Unnatural Products for up to $1.15B, bringing oral macrocyclic peptides and new formulation challenges to its antibody portfolio.
The FDA grants accelerated approval to subcutaneous amivantamab for head and neck cancer, extending the IV-to-subcutaneous shift in biologics formulation.
The business case for regulated AI turns on the cost of producing an outcome that the quality system can accept.
Advertisement
Advertisement