Adverse Drug Reactions Across the Age Continuum: Epidemiology, Diagnostic Challenges, Prevention, and Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common and important complications of drug therapy for children. The risk for ADRs changes over childhood, as do the nature and types of ADRs. Importantly, the risk and nature of ADRs in children are markedly different from those of adults, and adult data cannot be relied on to guide safe drug therapy in children. There are groups of children, notably those with complex and chronic diseases, who are at substantial risk for ADRs. The evaluation of an undesired effect during therapy is ideally accomplished by an organized approach that is a skill that clinicians who care for children-especially those children at high risk for ADRs must have. Additionally, clinicians as well as drug regulatory agencies and industry need to be both vigilant and astute as well as aware that ADRs in children are often different in nature and frequency from those in adults. The increasing use of pharmacogenomics to guide drug dosing and the increasing number of biological agents will provide new sets of challenges to clinicians over the next decade.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".