Perspective sur les préparations magistrales en pharmacie au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Au Canada, la pratique de la pharmacie est de juridiction provinciale et comporte notamment les activites de preparation des medicaments. L’entree en vigueur en janvier 2004 de nouvelles normes sur les preparations de medicaments par la United States Pharmacopeia (USP) fournit une bonne occasion de reflechir aux pratiques entourant les preparations de medicaments. L’objectif du present article est d’exposer les preoccupations cliniques et administratives des pharmaciens concernant les preparations de medicaments. L’article presente brievement un cas, une mise en contexte, le cadre normatif, les principaux enjeux et des recommandations afin d’assurer une pratique pharmaceutique optimale en matiere de preparation de medicaments. Abstract In Canada, pharmaceutical compounding is under provincial jurisdiction. In January 2004, new standards in drug compounding, issued by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), gave an opportunity to look at the practices of drug compounding. the objective of this article is to describe the pharmacists’ clinical and administrative preoccupations about drug compounding. The article briefly introduces a case presentation, and then describes the background, the normative framework, the main stakes, as well as recommendations that will allow an optimal pharmaceutical practice when it comes to drug formulation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".