MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205815588 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciab880

Therapeutic Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) During Pandemics: Double-edged Swords

2021· article· en· W3205815588 on OpenAlexaff
Adarsh Bhimraj, Rebecca L. Morgan, Amy Hirsch Shumaker, Valéry Lavergne, Lindsey R. Baden, Vincent Chi‐Chung Cheng, Kathryn M. Edwards, Rajesh T. Gandhi, Jason C Gallagher, William J. Muller, John C. O’Horo, Shmuel Shoham, Dana S. Wollins, Yngve Falck–Ytter

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAuthorizationMedicinePandemicTrustworthinessFood and drug administrationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medical emergencyDiseaseComputer securityPathologyComputer scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy's efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

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)0.598
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.756
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5980.756
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.023
Scholarly communication0.0300.039
Open science0.0080.021
Research integrity0.0270.041
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207