Adverse drug reactions in newborns, infants and toddlers: pediatric pharmacovigilance between present and future
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are the primary aims of pharmacovigilance activities. Pediatric patients, especially all newborns and infants, are particularly at risk for experiencing drug-related adverse events. AREAS COVERED: This review briefly analyzes the physiological peculiarities of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic aspects of drugs in newborns, infants and toddlers and children. It also deals with specific pediatric pharmacovigilance aspects, such as the frequent use of unlicensed and/or off-label drugs in neonatal intensive care units in European countries and in Australia. This review reports on European, American and Canadian data about the incidence and type of pediatric ADRs, particularly focusing on neonates, infants and toddlers. EXPERT OPINION: The awareness of pediatricians about the importance of reporting ADRs should be stimulated, new reporting systems should be encouraged and pediatric pharmacovigilance activities should be improved, first, by intensifying active post-marketing surveillance methods.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it