MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148112489 · doi:10.1345/aph.1a330

Development and Evaluation of an Electronic Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin

2002· article· en· W2148112489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher P Alderman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopularityPharmacyAudience measurementBulletin boardFamily medicineAdvertisingComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development, implementation, and initial evaluation of a paperless drug and therapeutics bulletin that is distributed by electronic mail from the pharmacy department of an Australian teaching hospital. OUTCOMES: A standardized format for the bulletin was designed and approved in February 2001. The aim of the bulletin is to facilitate the timely dissemination of concise, factual information about issues of current interest in therapeutics, drug safety, and the cost-effective use of medicines. A simple and attractive graphic design was chosen, and the hospital's clinical pharmacists and drug information staff developed an initial bank of content during the period immediately preceding the launch. The bulletin is presented as a 1-page, read-only file in Word for Windows format and was initially distributed by electronic mail to all users of the hospital's computerized communication network. As the popularity of the bulletin increased, healthcare practitioners from outside of the hospital began to request permission for inclusion on the circulation list, and the content was frequently forwarded by E-mail to workers in other hospitals and community-based settings. The bulletin is now distributed to pharmacists around Australia via 2 separate moderated discussion lists, one of which provides an archive site for previous editions. Healthcare workers in Singapore, the US, Canada, and New Zealand also receive the bulletin, which is now also abstracted by a major Australian pharmacy journal. A readership survey (also electronically distributed) was used to seek feedback after the publication of the first 12 editions. Readers indicated a high level of satisfaction with the content, format, and frequency of distribution of the materials. CONCLUSIONS: Although the concept and execution of this project was relatively simple, an extensive literature review did not reveal any previously published reports describing this type of approach to the distribution of a pharmacy bulletin. The development and implementation of the electronic drug and therapeutics bulletin has provided an opportunity to use modern communication technology to promote safe and effective medication use and appears to have been well received.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic DrugsFrench-language works237,207