Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: In a previous letter to AJPE we brought up the issue of introducing the 6-year entry- level PharmD program, comprising 5 didactic and 1 experiential years at some Indian pharmacy institutions. We thought that this would be a stepping stone in the right direction for pharmacy education in India. In our opinion, this would eventually promote patient-centered and population-based pharmaceutical care in India. In our assessment, India, as a developing country with a tremendous potential to grow, would provide a support system for a smooth transition from industry-focused pharmaceutical education to patient-centered pharmaceutical education. In a recent update on the implementation of the proposed PharmD course in India, the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has announced that the new PharmD program will be approved by the Ministry of Health, Government of India, shortly. The letter “PharmD in Developing Countries” published in the Volume71, Issue 6, issue of AJPE cites reasonable concerns about the Indian medical and pharmaceutical health care system. Due to insufficient health care budget, poor infrastructure, and inept and corrupt bureaucracy, the existing health care system does not function effectively. Most government-run hospitals and clinics are short of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists and lack basic medical and pharmaceutical care facilities. I have personally experienced that only a small number of health care professionals show interest in pursuing a career in serving government-funded hospitals in India. Nevertheless, as the Indian economy has grown in recent years, a wave of mostly privately owned hospitals and clinics has focused on a patient-centered pharmaceutical care system. In the past few years, India has become an epic center of medical tourism, as patients (mostly from Canada and European countries that have state-owned health care systems) come to India for better and cheap medical treatment. Nonetheless, I agree with the authors' view on revamping the pharmacy curriculum in India. It requires a serious thinking and commitment from all stakeholders at various levels. I would suggest a joint Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and All Indian Council on Technical Education (AICTE), a regulatory agency, taskforce to review and modify the current pharmacy curriculum in consistent with proposed clinical PharmD degree standards and guidelines. The international pharmacy education experts on curriculum and outcomes assessment should be invited to provide their advice in revamping the curriculum. Naushad M. Khan Ghilzai, PhD LECOM School of Pharmacy
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".