MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500337400 · doi:10.5603/piap.2016.0028

The Pharmaceutical Care in Asthma—Polish and Global Perspective

2016· review· en· W2500337400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damian Świeczkowski, Patryk Poniatowski, Piotr Merks, Miłosz Jaguszewski

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in respiratory medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmaceutical carePharmacyMedicineHealth carePharmacistPerspective (graphical)Government (linguistics)Pharmaceutical industryClinical pharmacyQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)NursingPharmacologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pharmaceutical care is a pharmacist's contribution to the care of individual patients and leads to optimize the use of drugs. The pharmaceutical care may improve adherence, clinical effectiveness of providing therapy and improve the health-related quality of life. The conducted literature review confirmed that pharmaceutical care and advanced pharmaceutical services are clinical effective in asthma. The implementation of pharmaceutical care under Polish conditions is currently insufficient and remains challenging for the future. Herein we should admit, that the polish government has recently put an effort to appoint specially dedicated team establishing a program of reimbursed pharmaceutical care. This move should be considered as a new phase for amendments community pharmacy in Poland. The experience of different health care systems, including for instance United Kingdom, Australia or Canada, might be used in the process of changing Polish perspective. Herein, we have reviewed the literature and highlighted the services creating the program of pharmaceutical care in asthma. This unique work describes the complex nature of optimal pharmaceutical services emphasizing the strong necessity of multidimensional approach in this field.

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)0.001
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 score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in respiratory medicineSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207