MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1847637679 · doi:10.1093/pch/16.4.e30

Variation in captopril formulations in pharmacies across Canada

2011· article· en· W1847637679 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mihir D. Bhatt, Jason E Thomas, Tapas Mondal

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaptoprilBioequivalenceMedicinePharmacyDosingPharmacologyDosage formACE inhibitorPopulationAngiotensin-converting enzymeIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePharmacokineticsFamily medicineBlood pressureEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Captopril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor used to manage congestive heart failure in the paediatric population, has limited data on efficacy and safety. Its variety of liquid formulations dispensed by different pharmacies poses a challenge in optimizing captopril dosing in patients. Fourteen tertiary paediatric centre pharmacies across Canada were contacted to decipher the type of captopril formulation they dispense, their recipe and the stability of each formulation. Of the 14 centres surveyed, four dispensed solid tablets, two dispensed either solid tablets or liquid formulations, and eight dispensed extemporaneously prepared liquid formulations. There was also great variety in the solutions used to prepare the liquid formulations. The bioequivalence of these preparations has not been studied. As a result, physicians cannot be certain about the effective dose of captopril. Uniformity is recommended among paediatric pharmacies in Canada when preparing medications such as captopril. Proper testing of the stability and bioequivalence of medications is recommended.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207