MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294167990 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n10p241

Greek National E-Prescribing System: Preliminary Results of a Tool for Rationalizing Pharmaceutical Use and Cost

2016· article· en· W2294167990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nikolaos Polyzos, Catherine Kastanioti, Christos Zilidis, George Mavridoglou, Stefanos Karakolias, Panagiota Litsa, Valantis Menegakis, Chara Kani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Quality and Counterfeiting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrakya Üniversitesi
KeywordsMedical prescriptionSpecialtyPer capitaAuditMedicineFamily medicineBusinessAccountingEnvironmental healthPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p><strong>BACKGROUND:</strong> In Greece, due to the ongoing economic crisis a number of measures aiming at rationalising expenditure implemented. A new e-prescribing system, under a unified healthcare fund was the main pillar of these reforms focus on monitoring and auditing prescribing patterns.</p><p><strong>OBJECTIVE:</strong> Main objective of this study was to document the Greek experience with the new national e-prescribing system.</p><p><strong>METHODS:</strong> We analyse the dispensed prescriptions over the period 2013-2014, stratified into four levels: therapeutic subgroup, patent status, physician's specialty and geographical region.</p><p><strong>RESULTS</strong>: Data analysis offered a comprehensive insight into pharmaceutical expenditure over the timeframe and revealed discrepancies regarding composition of spending, brand-generic substitution within certain therapeutic subgroups, physicians’ prescribing behaviour based on medical specialty, therapeutic subgroup as well as regional per capita measures.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> E-prescribing system is a valuable tool providing sound information to health policymakers in order to monitor and rationalize pharmaceutical expenditure, in value and volume terms.</p>

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicPharmaceutical Quality and CounterfeitingFrench-language works237,207