MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921586980 · doi:10.1002/cpt.203

Structured Frameworks to Increase the Transparency of the Assessment of Benefits and Risks of Medicines: Current Status and Possible Future Directions

2015· review· en· W1921586980 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Pignatti, Deborah Ashby, EP Brass, H‐G Eichler, Pascal Frey, HL Hillege, Akiko Hori, Bennett Levitan, Lawrence Liberti, RE Löfstedt, Neil McAuslane, Alain Micaleff, R A Noel, Douwe Postmus, Ortwin Renn, BJ Sabourin, Tomas Salmonson, Stuart Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessRisk assessmentRegulatory scienceDrug developmentProcess managementMedicineDrugPharmacologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structured frameworks for benefit-risk analysis in drug licensing decisions are being implemented across a number of regulatory agencies worldwide. The aim of these frameworks is to aid the analysis and communication of the benefit-risk assessment throughout the development, evaluation, and supervision of medicines. In this review, authors from regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and academia share their views on the different frameworks and discuss future directions.

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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.649
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.030 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207