MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing a paediatric drug formulary for the Netherlands

2016· review· en· W2539879719 on OpenAlex

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

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersChildren's National Hospital
KeywordsFormularyMedicineDosingDrugAlternative medicineDrug Utilization ReviewFamily medicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicinePediatricsPharmacologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As many drugs in paediatrics are used off-label, prescribers face a lack of evidence-based dosing guidelines. A Dutch framework was developed to provide dosing guidelines based on best available evidence from registration data, investigator-initiated research, professional guidelines, clinical experience and consensus. This has clarified the scientific grounds of drug use for children and encouraged uniformity in prescribing habits in the Netherlands. The developed framework and the current content of the Dutch Paediatric Formulary could be used as basis for similar initiatives worldwide, preferably in a concerted effort to ultimately provide children with effective and safe drug therapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.330 · 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