Perception de la pharmacovigilance par les futurs pharmaciens hospitaliers belges, français, québécois et suisses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparer la perception de la pharmacovigilance par les rsidents en pharmacie hospitalire belges, franais, qubcois et suisses.tude descriptive prospective sous forme de sondage sur surveymonkey.comexpdi par courriel en mars 2014 229 rsidents en pharmacie hospitalire de 4 pays francophones : Belgique, France, Qubec et Suisse.Identification des variables pertinentes partir d'une revue de la littrature.Choix de 18 questions fermes et 1 question ouverte, organises en 5 sections : donnes dmographiques (2 questions), formation et pratique (8 questions), attitude face un EIM (6 questions), obstacles la dclaration d'EIM (1 question) et mesures pour amliorer le taux de dclaration (2 questions).Validation par pr-test de 5 rsidents en pharmacie hospitalire et relecture par un panel de pharmaciens hospitaliers.Prise en compte des suggestions pour modifier le questionnaire avant administration.Questionnaire et traitement des rponses strictement anonymes.Science d'observation et de surveillance des effets indsirables mdicamenteux (EIM), la pharmacovigilance repose sur la notification spontane des professionnels de sant.Intgre la pratique des pharmaciens, cette activit devrait tre une partie incontournable de la formation des rsidents en pharmacie hospitalire.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".