Improving the identification of confused drug names in Spanish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since a drug name goes through different communication means and circumstances when it is prescribed, written, advertised, listened to, searched and administered; it tends to be confused with similar drug names that Look-Alike and Sound-Alike (LASA). LASA drug names have caused costs and damage to health. For this problem, the institutions of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States have implemented programs for several decades to report lists of confusing drug names pairs. Thanks to these kinds of list, it has been possible to propose new models to identify confusing drug names in English and are used to reject new drug name proposals or to alert when a confusing drug name is being dispensed. However, countries such as Spain also have published a list with the Spanish LASA drug names, and it is not clear enough whether the models previously proposed for the drug names in English are useful for the list in Spanish or if it is necessary to adjust and update them for the Spanish language. This paper focuses on updating and improving the identification of LASA drug names in Spanish. First, we update the state-of-the-art by evaluating all the individual similarity measures proposed previously and all the models that combine these measures with the list in Spanish. Second, we updated the models with new individual measures and then adjusted them with the list in Spanish to improve the identification of LASA drug names in Spanish. After that, 25 individual similarity measures and 8 models to identify confused drug names in Spanish are compared to obtain the best result and conclusions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".