MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compliance and convenience: do physicians and patients see depot medication differently?

2004· article· en· W2157464087 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Chue

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Neuropsychiatrica · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)Patient complianceMedicineMedication adherenceRegimenFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePsychologySurgerySocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physicians' attitudes to depot medication are often focused on improved compliance (adherence), and thus, short- and long-term treatment outcomes. By contrast, patients receiving such formulations tend to have a quite different viewpoint of medication. Factors such as convenience, side-effects and their beliefs about their illness play an important role in determining whether patients will adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen. The relationship between the patient and physician is of crucial importance in determining a patient's attitude to their medication; it is becoming increasingly clear that managing the illness in the long-term and avoiding relapse, while ensuring compliance, should be reframed as a collaborative process between the patient and physician.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa NeuropsychiatricaSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207