MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496873905 · doi:10.1515/bejeap-2013-0085

In Whom We Trust: The Role of Certification Agencies in Online Drug Markets

2012· article· en· W1496873905 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Roger Bate, Ginger Zhe Jin, Aparna Mathur

Bibliographic record

VenueThe B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Quality and Counterfeiting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCertificationBusinessMedical prescriptionPharmacyAuditTier 2 networkSample (material)MarketingAccountingFamily medicineMedicinePharmacologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article uses an audit sample and a consumer survey to study the intriguing market of online prescription drugs facing US customers and assesses the role that certification agencies play in online drug markets. On the supply side, we acquire samples of five popular brand-name prescription drugs from three types of online pharmacies: tier 1 are US-based and certified by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) or LegitScript.com, tier 2 are certified by PharmacyChecker.com or the Canadian International Pharmacy Association but not by NABP or LegitScript, and tier 3 are not certified by any of the four agencies. Most tier-2 and tier-3 websites are foreign. We find that 37 of the 365 delivered samples are different from the products we ordered and, therefore, non-testable. Conditional on testable samples, Raman spectrometry test finds no failure of authenticity except for eight Viagra samples from tier-3 websites. After controlling for testability and authenticity, tier-2 websites are 49.2% cheaper (p<0.01) and tier-3 websites are 54.8% cheaper (p < 0.01) than tier-1 sites. These differences are driven by non-Viagra drugs. For Viagra, failing samples are cheaper, but there is no significant price difference across tiers once we condition on testability and authenticity. To study the demand side, we designed a survey that was distributed by RxRights. Among the 2,522 respondents who have purchased prescription medication and are concerned about the price of US pharmaceuticals, results show that 61.54% purchase drugs online and mostly from foreign websites, citing cost saving as the leading reason. Conditional on shopping online, 41.11% check with a credentialing agency. Both samples convey a consistent message that certification agencies deliver useful information for foreign websites and online consumers. Further, while these findings confirm the Food and Drug Administration warning against rogue websites, they do suggest that a blanket ban against all foreign websites may deny consumers substantial savings from certified tier-2 websites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe B E Journal of Economic Analysis & PolicySame topicPharmaceutical Quality and CounterfeitingFrench-language works237,207