A REVIEW ON ROLE OF PHARMACIST ON ECONOMIC BURDEN OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adverse drug reaction (ADR) defined as harmful or unpleasant reaction resulting from intervention due to the use of medicinal product which may produce hazard from future administration. The incidence of ADRs was being increased from 3.7% to 30%. The studies report that ADRs account for 5% of hospital admissions and seen in 10-20% of hospitalized patients. Incidence of serious ADRs was 6.7% and fatal ADRs were 0.32% respectively. ADRs account for 4.2-30% of hospital admissions in United States and Canada, 2.5-10.6% in Europe and 5.7-18.8% in Australia. The pharmacist must assist in monitoring the safe and effective use of medication and reduce the occurrence of ADRs. As the pharmacists have vast knowledge of therapeutics and pharmacology of medications they can detect and monitor the ADRs and other medication related problems. Pharmacists should work together with other health care professionals to increase reporting of ADRs in hospital and community settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".