MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034465845 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2020.26227

Health Canada’s Proposal to Accelerate New Drug Reviews

2020· article· fr· W3034465845 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joel Lexchin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Public relationsBusinessPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health Canada is proposing to update its accelerated review pathways to get important new drugs into the market more quickly. To date, the two pathways that Health Canada uses have not demonstrated that they can identify therapeutically valuable new drugs. Drugs approved under the two pathways also have a greater likelihood of acquiring a serious safety warning post-marketing compared with drugs approved through the standard review pathway. The new proposals from Health Canada will not go far in rectifying this situation, and major changes are needed. Health Canada needs to present evidence that the changes it is proposing will actually allow these pathways to fulfill the set objectives and support health benefits for Canadians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207