Pediatric drug data in Canadian drug monographs: a descriptive analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal drug therapy in children relies on the availability of pediatric-specific information. We aimed to describe the current status of pediatric pharmacotherapy data in monographs of new drugs approved by Health Canada. METHODS: In this descriptive analysis, we reviewed the quality and quantity of monographs of new drugs approved by Health Canada between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2016. We excluded drugs withdrawn from the Canadian market and drugs with primary indications irrelevant to pediatrics. We determined the percentage of included drug monographs that listed pediatric-specific information. RESULTS: During this study period, Health Canada approved 281 drugs, 270 of which met our inclusion criteria. Pediatric-specific information and indication were present in 127 (47.1%) and 75 (27.8%) of the drug monographs, respectively. Of all pediatric age groups, neonates had the lowest number of indications listed in the product monographs (7, 2.6%). Only 9 (60%) oral drugs indicated for children 6 years of age or younger were available in child-friendly, age-appropriate dosage forms. INTERPRETATION: Most of the new drugs approved by Health Canada do not contain pediatric or neonatal indications in their product monographs, and therefore, are used "off-label." Regulatory mechanisms are required to promote both neonatal and pediatric drug development and submission of available pediatric data by manufacturers to Health Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".