Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to recognize the vital reasons for including public and patient voices in health policy decision-making, but illustrates the challenge it creates for decision-makers who must consider whether those voices represent patient interests or corporate interests. Design/methodology/approach – This paper takes the form of a narrative review. Findings – The history of flibanserin, a controversial new drug to treat a debatable condition, illustrates how a public relations campaign could circumvent the well-established process to weigh evidence of potential harm vs benefit by one of the most robust drug regulators in the world. Practical implications – It is both vital to recognize a fundamental problem that exists when corporate interests deceptively assume the mantle of “the patient voice” and then act to reduce that influence while supporting and building capacity in genuinely independent, consumer-focused activities. Originality/value – This paper suggests that organizations interested in consumer protection and the safe and cost-effective use of health resources create policies and procedures that can foster genuine consumer involvement while recognizing the danger to patient safety and consumer interests when consumer involvement is hijacked by vested interests.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".