Access to Biologic Therapies in Canada for Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare access to biologic therapies for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) across Canada, and to identify differences in provincial regulations and criteria for access. METHODS: Between June and August 2010, we compiled the provincial guidelines for reimbursement of biologic drugs for children with JIA and conducted a multicenter Canada-wide survey of pediatric rheumatologists to determine their experience with accessing biologic therapies for their patients. RESULTS: There were significant difficulties accessing biologic treatments other than etanercept and abatacept for children. There were large discrepancies in the access criteria and coverage of biologic agents across provinces, notably with age restrictions for younger children. CONCLUSION: Canadian children with JIA may not receive optimal internationally recognized "standard" care because pediatric coverage for biologic drugs through provincial formularies is limited and inconsistent across the country. There is urgent need for public policy to improve access to biologic therapies for these children to ensure optimal short-term and longterm health outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".