Doctors demand to see evidence on safety of medical devices approved in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Senior doctors, consumer groups, and campaigners for transparency are urging the European Commission to force the manufacturers of high risk medical devices to make public all the evidence they hold on the safety of their products. The calls came just days after a global investigation into the industry by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, The BMJ , BBC Panorama , the Guardian , and others called the Implant Files, which uncovered thousands of documents showing the rising number of malfunctions and injuries from a range of medical devices.1 A new law for medical device regulation in the European Union was passed last year and comes into effect from 2020. It sets data transparency as one of its main goals, but the European Commission, which has been the subject of intense lobbying from the device industry, has said that it plans to withhold …
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 | 0.088 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.040 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".