MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517449684 · doi:10.1002/pds.3606

Personalizing medicine: a review of adaptive treatment strategies

2014· review· en· W1517449684 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacoepidemiologyIntensive care medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of current pharmacological practice focuses on identifying the single 'best' treatment (or course of treatments) for a particular disease. Recently, however, focus has begun to shift towards a more patient-centric rather than disease-centric approach, where personal characteristics are used to identify the optimal treatment for an individual. Adaptive treatment strategies (also known as dynamic treatment regimes) are part of a rapidly expanding area of research whereby such personalized treatments can be identified. These methods can lead to improved results over standard 'one size fits all' approaches, as well as provide a route to formalizing a common practice of using ad hoc approaches when deciding or updating management plans. Here, we provide an introduction to adaptive treatment strategies, explaining their background, their purpose, and how they can be employed in practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.713
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.054 · 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