Paediatric clinical research from the perspective of hospital pharmacists from France and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare pharmacy support for paediatric research services in France and Canada and to describe the perception of pharmacists and rank the paediatric clinical research issues. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study. All paediatric hospitals from Canada and the main hospitals from France were contacted. A survey was conducted from May-September 2012. Descriptive statistics were performed. KEY FINDINGS: Results from 11 paediatric hospitals in Canada (11/12, 92%) and 11 (11/18, 61%) in France were obtained. There was a similar number of ongoing paediatric clinical trials per hospital in France versus Canada (38 (10-81) versus 20 (4-178)). A lower number of pharmacists per hospital was observed in France (17 (11.5-35) versus 45 (18.9-76.8)), but a similar number of pharmacists were assigned to clinical trials (1.5 (1-3) versus 1.9 (0.2-17.4)). Institutional protocols represented the majority of paediatric clinical trials in France (61% (14-100) versus 25% (0-100)). Similar pharmacy support services were offered, but the majority of French respondents also offered help for institutional protocol development (91 versus 50% P = 0.063). The main issues associated with paediatric clinical research were absence of financial interest from the pharmaceutical industry, prohibitive cost versus profit ratio, small patient cohorts and the non-availability of the appropriate drug formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Difficulties related to pharmaceutical compounding were identified as the main hindrance to paediatric clinical research; particular attention should be paid to these details when setting up a paediatric trial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".