A99 PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY FUNDING TO GASTROINTESTINAL PATIENT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) are not-for-profit organizations that aim to support families and individuals afflicted by illnesses. PAOs play a significant role in guiding health policy, providing education to patients, lobbying, and supporting research. Previous studies have demonstrated that PAOs may receive financial payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. This may create a risk of conflict of interest. Aims To assess the prevalence and transparency of financial donations from industry to gastrointestinal patient advocacy groups based in the United States (US). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of industry donations to PAOs. Data was extracted from the Kaiser Health News (KHN) Database, a database that tracked payments from pharmaceutical companies to PAOs in 2015. After an initial list of 1215 PAOs was obtained from the database, authors extracted the annual revenues, websites and mission statements for each PAO. Authors individually screened each organization’s mission statement and website to determine whether their primary scope of focus included gastroenterology. A final list of 11 PAOs with annual revenues surpassing $500,000 USD was included for descriptive analysis. From this list, the annual reports and websites of each group were reviewed to determine the extent of transparency of PAOs disclosing financial relationships with industry sponsors. The primary outcome of our study was the total amount of funding that each PAO received from pharmaceutical companies. The secondary outcome was the self-reported amount of funding stated on each PAO’s website and annual report. Results From our analysis of 11 PAOs, 9 (81%) organizations received payments from pharmaceutical companies. The median dollar value of donations received was $31,052 USD (IQR=$25 to $302,550). The total dollar value of donations received was $4,059,433 USD. Across the 9 PAOs that received donations, 5 (56%) organizations disclosed a financial relationship with a pharmaceutical company on their website and 2 (22%) disclosed the value of industry donations within a range. No group specified an exact amount of funding received. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that a majority of US based gastrointestinal PAOs receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, our results show that many PAOs that receive industry funding do not disclose this amount on their website or annual reports. Given their role in providing patient centered support, it is important for PAOs to disclose financial relationships with industry so as to not produce a conflict of interest. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.009 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".