MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041905260 · doi:10.1002/cmdc.200700008

Pharmaceutical Strategy and Innovation: An Academics Perspective

2007· review· en· W2041905260 on OpenAlexaff
Ian R. Baxendale, John J. Hayward, Steven V. Ley, Geoffrey K. Tranmer

Bibliographic record

VenueChemMedChem · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)TransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmaceutical industryBusinessOutsourcingContext (archaeology)SAFERMarketingProductivityProfit (economics)Perspective (graphical)Industrial organizationEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pharmaceutical industry is under increasing pressure on many fronts, from investors requiring larger returns to consumer groups and health authorities demanding cheaper and safer drugs. It is also feeling additional pressure from the infringement upon its profit margins by generic drug producers. Many companies are aggressively pursuing outsourcing contracts in an attempt to counter many of the financial pressures and streamline their operations. At the same time, the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry at its science base is being questioned in terms of the number of products and the timeframes required for each company to deliver them to market. This has generated uncertainties regarding the current corporate strategies that have been adopted and the levels of innovation being demonstrated. In this essay we discuss these topics in the context of the global pharmaceutical market, investigating the basis for many of these issues and highlighting the hurdles the industry needs to overcome, especially as they relate to the chemical sciences.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.470
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.003 · 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
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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemMedChemSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207