MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3039216908

Perception de la pharmacogénomique par les pharmaciens hospitaliers, les internes et les résidents en pharmacie français et québécois

2020· article· fr· W3039216908 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maud Harry, Denis Lebel, Simon de Denus, Natalie Letarte, Annie Lavoie, Géraldine Marquot, Jean‐François Bussières

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceFrenchArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectif : L’objectif principal de cette etude vise a comparer la perception qu’ont de la pharmacogenomique les pharmaciens hospitaliers, internes et residents en pharmacie hospitaliere francais a celle de leurs homologues quebecois. Mise en contexte : L’annee 2003 marque la fin du sequencage du genome humain dans le cadre d’un travail concerte sur le plan international. Cette avancee scientifique incroyable ouvre notamment la porte a la pharmacogenomique et a son utilisation en pratique pharmaceutique. On connait peu les attentes des pharmaciens hospitaliers, des internes et des residents francais et quebecois. Resultats : Un total de 285 pharmaciens hospitaliers, internes et residents en pharmacie francais et quebecois ont repondu a un sondage. Les donnees de 278 repondants ont ete analysees, soit 106 repondants en France (taux de reponse de 24,7 %, 106/429) et 172 repondants au Quebec (taux de reponse de 33 %, 172/521). Une proportion limitee de repondants a recu de la formation en pharmacogenomique (36,3 % en France et 29,5 % au Quebec) et a donc ete exposee a des resultats de tests pharmacogenomiques dans la pratique (31,4 % et 33,7 %). Toutefois, les repondants pensent que le developpement de la pharmacogenomique permettra aux pharmaciens hospitaliers de participer davantage a la prise en charge du patient (79,4 % en France et 87,6 % au Quebec). Conclusion : Il existe peu de difference entre la perception qu’ont de la pharmacogenomique les pharmaciens hospitaliers, les internes et les residents en pharmacie francais et quebecois. Ils pensent tous que la pharmacogenomique est appelee a prendre une place croissante dans leur pratique. Ils ont neanmoins exprime des attentes et des apprehensions auxquelles il est possible de repondre par une formation adequate, des lignes directrices claires et des balises de remboursement. Abstract Objective: The main objective of this study is to compare the perception of pharmacogenomics of French hospital pharmacists and hospital pharmacy interns and residents and their Quebec counterparts. Background: The year 2003 marked the conclusion of the sequencing of the human genome as part of a concerted, international effort. This incredible scientific breakthrough has opened the door to pharmacogenomics and its use in pharmaceutical practice. Little is known about the expectations of French and Quebec hospital pharmacists and pharmacy interns and residents. Results: A total of 285 French and Quebec hospital pharmacists and pharmacy interns and residents responded to a survey. The data from 278 respondents were analyzed: 106 respondents in France (24.7% response rate, 106/429) and 172 respondents in Quebec (33% response rate, 172/521). A modest proportion of respondents had received pharmacogenomics training (36.3% in France and 29.5% in Quebec) and therefore had exposure to pharmacogenomics test results in practice (31.4% and 33.7%). However, the respondents felt that the development of pharmacogenomics will enable hospital pharmacists to be more involved in the management of patients (79.4% in France and 87.6% in Quebec). Conclusion: There is little difference in the perception of pharmacogenomics among hospital pharmacists and pharmacy interns and residents in France and Quebec. All of them believe that pharmacogenomics will play a growing role in their practice. Nevertheless, they expressed certain expectations and apprehensions, which can be addressed through adequate training, clear guidelines and coverage parameters.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→