MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008358953 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v67i3.1360

Designing Pharmacy Practice Research Trials

2014· article· en· W2008358953 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ross T. Tsuyuki

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyPharmacy practiceClinical trialClinical PracticeMedicineAlternative medicineMedical educationClinical pharmacyResearch designFamily medicineMedical physicsSociologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of the components of a pharmacy practice trial. Many of the issues in the design of pharmacy practice research studies are similar to those for clinical trials, and the reader is referred to textbooks on clinical trial design for more in-depth information.

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)0.454
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.511
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4540.511
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.684
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.034 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207