MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W277790345 · doi:10.1093/pch/8.4.210

Better drug therapy for children: Time for action

2003· article· en· W277790345 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Rieder

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAction (physics)Health careDosingClinical PracticeAlternative medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineFamily medicinePharmacologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the past century has seen the most remarkable advances in medical management in history, the benefits of the therapeutic revolution have not been equally shared (1). As child health care workers appreciate, and as noted elsewhere in this issue of Paediatrics & Child Health, there is no evidence-based support for the efficacy, optimal dosing and safety of the majority of drugs commonly used in children. Academic paediatrics has let therapeutics for children evolve by default, driven by inferences from adult medicine and emotional rather than evidence-based prescribing practice. Given the increasing number and complexity of new therapies entering clinical practice, this usual state of affairs is clearly unacceptable for now and certainly for the future.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207