Meeting report: FDA public meeting on patient-focused drug development and medication adherence in solid organ transplant patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a public meeting and scientific workshop in September 2016 to obtain perspectives from solid organ transplant recipients, family caregivers, and other patient representatives. The morning sessions focused on the impact of organ transplantation on patients' daily lives and the spectrum of activities undertaken to maintain grafts. Participants described the physical, emotional, and social impacts of their transplant on daily life. They also discussed their posttransplant treatment regimens, including the most burdensome side effects and their hopes for future treatment. The afternoon scientific session consisted of presentations on prevalence and risk factors for medication nonadherence after transplantation in adults and children, and interventions to manage it. As new modalities of Immunosuppressive Drug Therapy are being developed, the patient perceptions and input must play larger roles if organ transplantation is to be truly successful.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.020 |
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".