MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139865646 · doi:10.1017/s096318010707020x

Internet Marketing of Neuroproducts: New Practices and Healthcare Policy Challenges

2007· article· en· W2139865646 on OpenAlexaffabout
Éric Racine, H.Z. Adriaan van der Loos, Judy Illes

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsNewspaperDirect-to-consumer advertisingPromotion (chess)Pharmaceutical marketingMedical prescriptionThe InternetPharmaceutical industryHealth careVariety (cybernetics)AdvertisingMarketingPublic relationsBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of healthcare products refers to a variety of marketing practices based on a combination of information and promotion strategies directed at consumers through different media such as radio and television broadcasts, newspaper and magazine ads, and, more recently, through the Internet. The principal form of marketing used by the pharmaceutical industry is the distribution of free samples to physicians but DTCA is an increasing part of global promotional spending for prescription drugs. Latest estimates suggest that DTCA now represents an annual $3.2 billion enterprise for the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Findings from the literature show that these substantial efforts are geared toward the newer pharmaceuticals for chronic conditions with huge market potentials. The lion's share is going to the 20 most prescribed pharmaceuticals.We thank the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (J.I.) for funding of this project and Dr. Patricia King for her support. Writing of this paper was supported by NIH/NINDS R01 #NS045831 (J.I.) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (E.R.). We also acknowledge Dr. Pamela Schraedley-Desmond, Shilpa Gulati, Neil Mukhopadhyay, and Sarah Waldman.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0190.022
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0180.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.602
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.015 · 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
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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare EthicsSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207