Bibliographic record
Abstract
We may say that “children are not small adults”, but do we take this sentiment to heart when prescribing medicines? Publicity about the increased risk of suicide in youth with mood disorders treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (1), and the risk of serious side effects in young children administered over-the-counter cough and cold medications (2) highlights attention that is being devoted worldwide to the lack of evidence on which to base therapeutic decisions for the care of children. Physicians who treat children often must decide between withholding treatment proven effective in older patients or using medications ‘off-label’, with insufficient information about drug dose, metabolism, known side effects or appropriate formulations. However, there is strong pressure for change, and to improve the number, quality and reporting of paediatric clinical trials. The WHO has been advocating for ‘better medicines for children’, and legislative incentives in the United States and Europe encourage the conduct of paediatric clinical trials. There is an urgent need for Canada to act with similar legislative incentives in this area.
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 | 0.819 | 0.880 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.030 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".