MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944904152 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190010

Declarations of interest by members of Health Canada’s special advisory committees and panels: a descriptive study

2019· article· en· W2944904152 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joel Lexchin

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvisory committeeSpecial Interest GroupConflict of interestPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessFinancePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Health Canada supplements its in-house expertise on pharmacotherapy and pharmaceutical policy through the use of scientific/expert advisory committees and scientific/expert advisory panels. This study was undertaken to examine the interests of the members of these Health Canada advisory bodies. Methods: This was an observational study of the financial and intellectual interests of members of Health Canada’s scientific/expert advisory committees and panels. The following information was extracted from Health Canada websites in December 2018: member’s name, name of committee/panel, direct and indirect financial interests, and intellectual interests. Information extracted about the committees and panels included the number of meetings for which a record of proceedings was available and the topics discussed at the meetings. Results: Of 81 unique committee and panel members, 12 declared a direct financial interest, 56 an indirect financial interest and 65 an intellectual interest. Five of 11 committees and panels had people who declared a direct financial interest. All 11 advisory bodies had members who declared indirect financial interests (n = 62) and intellectual interests (n = 81). Six of the 11 committees and panels had a majority of members who declared a direct or indirect financial interest. In the 10 advisory body meetings for which information was available, individual products were rarely discussed but recommendations from all but 1 of the meetings could potentially have affected sales. Interpretation: Only a minority of members of Health Canada’s advisory committees and panels declared direct financial interests but the majority of members of a majority of the advisory bodies declared indirect financial and intellectual interests. Because of the lack of individual voting records it was not possible to determine if financial or intellectual interests influenced voting patterns.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.571
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.037 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207