MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058168520 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v65i3.1145

Conformité des bilans comparatifs des médicaments à l’admission transmis au département de pharmacie par télécopieur

2012· article· fr· W2058168520 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
S. Penfornis, Pascal Bédard, Benoît Bailey, Jean‐François Bussières

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e bilan comparatif des medicaments (BCM) est un processusstructure au cours duquel les professionnels de la sante travaillent en partenariat avec les patients, les familles et lessoignants pour assurer la transmission d’une information exacteet complete sur les medicaments aux points de transition dessoins du patient (c.-a-d. admission, transfert et conge). Le processus englobe la production d’une liste complete de tous lesmedicaments que le patient prenait avant l’admission, c’est-a-dire le meilleur schema therapeutique possible. Cette liste estetablie grâce a diverses sources et comprend des renseignementssur les medicaments d’ordonnance, les medicaments en ventelibre, les vitamines et supplements, ainsi que le nom du medica-ment, la dose, la frequence et la voie d’administration. Touteanomalie relevee entre ce qui est prescrit au patient et ce qu'ilprend en realite sera signalee au fournisseur de soins pour etrecorrigee.L’etablissement d’un plan ecrit pour instaurer le BCMpartout dans l’organisme de soins est un test de conformiteetabli dans l’intitule de la Pratique organisationnelle requise parAgrement Canada

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207