Significance and Role of Academic Detailing for Optimal Medication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Academic detailing" is used to clearly explain scientific issues. In the field of clinical practice, "academic detailing" is a form of interactive educational outreach to physicians in order to provide unbiased, non-commercial, evidence-based information about medications and other therapeutic modalities, with the goal of improving patient care. It is necessary to provide proper information about prescription drugs for their appropriate use in clinical practice. However, this requires of physicians significant time and labor to comprehensively collect and summarize all necessary information for the proper clinical application of pharmaceutical products, a task which may be both difficult and prohibitive to a busy physician. However, if clinical experience and other pharmaceutical or treatment information is derived solely from the commercial entities, this may lead to improper prescription practices. In western countries, public funds are used to support universities and other research institution programs. In Canada, clinical pharmacists act as "detailers". Their mission and role is to listen to the needs of the physician or health care professional, to provide objective, evidence-based drug information on selected drug therapy topics, to educate physicians on the optimal use of medications, to provide practical alternatives, and to extend the physician's usable knowledge base. The importance of this "academic detailing" activity is also recognized in Japan, and pharmacists can be expected to act as detailers in the future. We hope that this will lead to improvement in the quality of medical care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads 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".