MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899177929 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.070

The WHO list of essential in vitro diagnostics: Development and next steps

2018· editorial· en· W2899177929 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Moussy, Adriana Velazquez Berumen, Madhukar Pai

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsEssential medicinesMedicinePublic healthPopulationHealth careGlobal healthDeveloping countryRelevance (law)Quality (philosophy)Environmental healthEconomic growthNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, access to essential medicines has been a major priority in global health. The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) was published over 40 years ago, to address the need for countries to make essential medicines more accessible and affordable to patients, especially in low income countries. Over time, it has become clear that medicines are necessary, but not sufficient to offer quality primary care, prevent outbreaks, and address threats such as antimicrobial resistance and the global epidemic of non-communicable (NCD) diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.054

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207