MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158817227 · doi:10.24926/iip.v12i2.3897

Pharmacist Prescriptive Authority for Acne: An Evidence-Based Approach to Policy

2021· review· en· W3158817227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Adams, Alex J. Adams, Michael E. Klepser

Bibliographic record

VenueINNOVATIONS in pharmacy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcneJurisdictionPharmacistMedical prescriptionMedicineAcne treatmentProtocol (science)Adverse effectFamily medicineMedical emergencyAlternative medicineNursingPharmacyPolitical scienceDermatologyPharmacologyLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagnosis of acne is typically straightforward and based on physical signs and symptoms. Some jurisdictions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States have enabled a pharmacist treatment model to diagnose and manage patients with mild acne using prescription medications. Studies have found the model to be safe and effective, while simultaneously increasing more timely access to care for patients which may reduce the potential adverse impacts of acne. Further, use of a standardized protocol may alleviate some of the concerns expressed over the model. This paper summarize answers to frequent questions to help policymakers consider the objective evidence for their jurisdiction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINNOVATIONS in pharmacySame topicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsFrench-language works237,207