MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799647415 · doi:10.1177/0840470418767966

Medication adherence monitoring: implications for patients and providers

2018· article· en· W2799647415 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bobby Gheorghiu, Seema Nayani

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsCanada Health Infoway
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyDilemmaMedical emergencyMedication adherenceMedicineHealth careInternet privacyBusinessFamily medicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-adherence to medication is a key worldwide issue and can lead to adverse patient outcomes and increased health system costs. Would a process facilitating notification of non-adherence infringe upon the autonomy of individuals or breach expectations of privacy? In contrast, patients who are not taking their medication could unknowingly be putting themselves at risk and all the while prescribers are unaware and without the opportunity to intervene. With the advent of electronic methods of medication adherence monitoring, this ethical dilemma now involves a new layer of complexity. We present two scenarios encountered in clinical practice that reflect issues occurring regularly in the Canadian healthcare system.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207