A questionnaire study investigating future pharmacists’ use of, and views on cognitive enhancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This work aimed to ascertain future pharmacists’ use of, and attitudes towards cognitive enhancers (CEs). Methods: Following ethical approval, all first and final year pharmacy students at Queen's University Belfast (QUB) were invited to complete a pre-piloted, non-identifiable, paper-based questionnaire during a compulsory class. Descriptive statistics were undertaken; non-parametric tests were used for comparisons with significance set at p<0.05 a priori. Results: The response rates were 89.3% (Level 1) and 89.0% (Level 4) with 48.0% of respondents reporting they were CE users (largely caffeine). Additionally, 42.4% thought using pharmaceutical CEs for improving academic grades breached their Code of Conduct. Level 4 students were more likely to associate over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription-only medicines (POM) CEs with side effects than Level 1 [OTC statement p=0.001 and POM statement p=0.016]. Discussion: CE use among future pharmacists seems quite high; Level 1 students appear more naïve about safety concerns. Educational workshops could further explore ethical issues.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".