MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010038158 · doi:10.1038/clpt.2012.233

Gender Differences in Drug Bioequivalence: Time to Rethink Practices

2012· review· en· W2010038158 on OpenAlexaff
Gideon Koren, Hedvig Nordeng, Sorcha MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioequivalenceDrugMedicinePharmacologyPharmacokinetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, bioequivalence (BE) studies are carried out exclusively in males, assuming that intrasubject variabilities are similar between the sexes. This article challenges this hypothesis on the basis of available evidence and urges that studies of BE of sufficient power be undertaken in women also for all generic drugs aimed at women. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2013); 93 3, 260–262. doi:10.1038/clpt.2012.233

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.865
GPT teacher head0.634
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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