MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056297313 · doi:10.1586/erp.12.15

Personalized medicine policy challenges: measuring clinical utility at point of care

2012· review· en· W2056297313 on OpenAlexaff
Tibor van Rooij, Donna M. Wilson, Sharon Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalized medicinePharmacogenomicsPrecision medicineRelevance (law)Point of careTipping point (physics)MedicineScale (ratio)MEDLINEData scienceComputer scienceBioinformaticsNursingPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pharmacogenomics, driven by advances in genomics, helps to explain patients' individual variability in response to therapies. Personalized medicine, the application of the increasing understanding of pharmacogenomics, and information technology are intertwined from discovery to delivery at point of care, through to tracking clinical outcomes. Although exemplary cases of personalized medicine adoption demonstrate patient benefit and cost-effectiveness, a remaining barrier to large-scale real-world uptake of this novel approach in medicine is policy change. At point-of-care implementation, case studies will need to measure personalized medicine application outcomes of relevance to policy-makers and as evidence of clinical utility. Assessments need to be consistent across case studies. Standardizing specifications for case studies will better inform policy-makers performing economic evaluations on the use of personalized medicine.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.535
GPT teacher head0.686
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207