MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006172450 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010588

REMS in pregnancy: system perfectly designed to the get the results it gets

2020· letter· en· W3006172450 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan S. Zipursky

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThalidomideIsotretinoinCertificationPatient safetyPregnancyDrugFamily medicineHealth careMedical emergencyIntensive care medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive drug safety has been a priority for patients and physicians even before the 1960s, when thalidomide—a drug commonly used to alleviate morning sickness—was tied to alarming cases of infants born with phocomelia.1 The Kefauver-Harris Amendment of 1962 prevented thalidomide approval in the USA.1 The legislation also led to immediate reforms in how drugs were approved, but not necessarily how they were prescribed.1 In the decades that followed, processes to regulate safe prescribing lagged. The first reproductive drug safety initiatives were those for isotretinoin (Accutane) and thalidomide: the Accutane Pregnancy Prevention Program (1988), the System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (1998) and the System to Manage Accutane-Related Teratogenicity (2002). In response to persistent gaps in these and other drug safety monitoring programmes, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) subsequently implemented the Risk Management and Evaluation Strategy (REMS) programme in 2007.2 REMS is a multifaceted programme intended to ensure prescribing and dispensing of specific drugs occur only in situations in which the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.2 The best known REMS is iPLEDGE, which aims to regulate isotretinoin in pregnancy. Each REMS has key components, including medication guides, product inserts and communication plans, informing healthcare providers and professional societies about drug harms. Additional components called elements to assure safe use (ETASU) apply to drugs with the most significant safety concerns, and include training and certification programmes for physicians and pharmacists, laboratory monitoring, creation of drug registries and restrictions on distribution (eg, hospitals and infusion clinics). The REMS programme was also intended to provide a means of evaluating the efficacy and efficiency of drug safety monitoring programmes. Today, 57 active REMS programmes are approved by the FDA, 10 of them pertaining to drugs in pregnancy (table 1).3 It is important to note …

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0040.019
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.048

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207