MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031905064 · doi:10.1097/ftd.0b013e3181dd51ef

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Pediatrics: How Do Children Differ?

2010· review· en· W2031905064 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Drug Monitoring · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDrugNeglectMethylphenidateEconomic shortagePharmacyPediatricsIntensive care medicinePsychiatryFamily medicineAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The science of therapeutic drug monitoring in children remains relatively underdeveloped. This is in part attributable to the continuing neglect of issues in pediatric pharmacology/toxicology and pharmacy during the past 50 years when the overall pace of change in other areas of therapeutics has been dramatic. For a variety of reasons, children have not participated in or received all the benefits of clinical progress in treatment and understanding of drug toxicity. In 1968, Dr. Harry Shirkey coined the phrase "therapeutic orphans" to describe the situation of infants, toddlers, and children who, in his view, were being denied access to modern drug therapy. Most authors have attributed this orphan status to the shortage of relevant drug research in children and to relative disinterest on the part of private sector sponsors, who generally have seen little potential for profit in the introduction of therapies targeting children. Exceptions to this pattern are found in drug categories such as anti-infectives, vitamins, respiratory drugs, seizure treatments, and analgesics. Additionally, there has been heavy emphasis placed on the study of drugs affecting behavior in conditions such as attention deficit disorder.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Drug MonitoringSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207