MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471049403 · doi:10.1111/bcp.13058

Design and conduct of early phase drug studies in children: challenges and opportunities

2016· review· en· W2471049403 on OpenAlex
Michael Rieder, Daniel B. Hawcutt

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrugStandardizationDosingMedicinePharmacologyClinical study designClinical trialDrug developmentPhase (matter)Intensive care medicineEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has historically been very difficult to conduct early phase drug studies in children for a number of reasons related to ethics, acceptability, rarity, standardization, end points, safety, dosing and feasibility. Over the past decade there have been a number of developments including novel clinical trial design, in silico pharmacology and microdosing that have significantly enhanced the ability of investigators to conduct early phase drug studies in children. While the evolution of drug therapy is creating a series of new challenges, there has never been a better time for conducting drug studies in children.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.702
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.092 · 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