MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968434937 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v65i6.1197

Diagnostic Imaging for Pharmacists

2012· article· en· W1968434937 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jerrold Perrott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical physicsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

($60 for APhA members).Diagnostic Imaging for Pharmacists is a combined textbook and partial pharmacopeia that provides explanations of both diagnostic and therapeutic radiographic modalities and discussions of applicable contrast media, adjuncts, and therapeutic agents.It offers basic descriptions of the principles of imaging used in various techniques and delves more specifically into the associated pharmaceuticals necessary for imaging and therapy.This text is, according to the website of the American Pharmacists Association, "the only diagnostic imaging reference written specifically for pharmacists."With its focus predominantly on the pharmaceuticals used within the radiology department, the most likely target audience would be pharmacists with responsibilities for the provision of care in this setting, an evolving role that the authors of this text advocate.Other pharmacists with an interest in the topic and those who regularly manage care for patients undergoing radiological procedures may also find this text useful.The lead editors for this text are both pharmacists with interests in nuclear medicine.Smith holds a BScPharm and a PhD and is past chair of the University of Saint Joseph School of Pharmacy in West Hartford, Connecticut.Weatherman holds the credentials PharmD, BCNP, and FAPhA.She is a clinical associate professor of pharmacy practice at Purdue University in Indianapolis, Indiana, with primary responsibilities in nuclear pharmacy and diagnostic imaging.The 10 contributing authors are a group of physicians, pharmacists, radiation safety officers, and technical experts from various academic, industry, and medical institutions across the United States.This collection of authors has the broad scope and knowledge base necessary to produce a text such as this.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.011

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207