Development of the Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Trials Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The development of the Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Trials Network (CCPTN) as a model for practice-based pharmacotherapy research is described. SUMMARY: The CCPTN was formed in 2010 as a collaborative research network dedicated to scientific investigation in the field of critical care pharmacotherapy. The CCPTN organizational structure is consistent with many professional pharmacy and interdisciplinary organizations and organized into 3 primary domains: executive committee, working committees, and network membership. The network membership consists of critical care investigators dedicated to the mission and vision of the CCPTN and is open to anyone expressing an interest in contributing to high-level research. Network member sites represent the breadth of U.S. critical care practice environments. In addition, network members include individuals with demonstrated expertise in patient safety, administration, research design, grantsmanship, database management, peer review, and scientific writing. In 2015, there were more than 100 site investigators from around the United States and Canada. Projects to date have yielded numerous abstracts, platform presentations, and peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals. The CCPTN has expanded to form collaborations with researchers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The CCPTN has identified new potential partnerships and field-based areas for inquiry. Numerous opportunities for continued growth and scientific inquiry in the field of critical care pharmacotherapy research exist for the CCPTN to foster in the coming years. CONCLUSION: The CCPTN has been a successful model for practice-based pharmacotherapy research and assists its members in expanding critical care pharmacotherapy knowledge.
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 | 0.302 | 0.310 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.009 |
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".