Campania preventability assessment committee: a focus on the preventability of the contrast media adverse drug reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study aims to assess the preventability of the contrast media adverse drug reactions reported through the Campania spontaneous reporting system, identifying the possible limitations emerged in this type of evaluation. METHOD: All the individual case safety reports validated by the Campania Pharmacovigilance Regional Centre from July 2012 to September 2015 were screened to select those that reported contrast media as suspected drug. Campania Preventability Assessment Committee, in collaboration with clinicians specialized in Radiology, assessed the preventability according to the P-Method, through a case-by-case approach. RESULTS: From July 2012 to September 2015, 13798 cases were inserted by pharmacovigilance managers in the Italian Pharmacovigilance Network database (in the geographical contest of the Campania Region), of which 67 reported contrast media as suspected drug. Five preventable cases were found. The most reported causes for preventability were the inappropriate drug use for the case clinical conditions and the absence of the preventive measure administrated prior to the contrast media administration. Several limitations were found in the evaluation of the critical criteria for the preventability assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Educational initiatives will be organized directly to the healthcare professionals involved in the contrast media administration, to promote an appropriate use of the contrast media.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".