MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248807452 · doi:10.1136/dtb.2006.441073

New drugs from old

2006· review· en· W4248807452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Therapeutics Bulletin · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketingKey (lock)Value (mathematics)Brand namesValue for moneyQuarter (Canadian coin)Market shareEconomicsPublic economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NHS spends over pound10 billion each year on medicines. The use of generic (patent-expired) medicines rather than branded equivalents has a key role in containing this expenditure and ensuring best value for money. On average, 4 years after the patent of a branded medicine has expired in the UK, generic equivalents will account for around half of the drug's market and cost about a quarter as much as the original brand. This represents a potentially large loss of income and, therefore, a major concern for companies that market branded products. Consequently, many use a long-term strategy known as 'lifecycle management' to minimise loss and to maximise returns from such products. This encompasses prioritising products for development, forming strategic alliances with other companies to share resourses, and utilising legal processes to protect products. One part of this strategy is the development and intensive marketing of new formulations or derivatives of existing medicines nearing the end of their patent life. Here we highlight some key examples of the impact the marketing of such products can have on patients, prescribers and the NHS.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.369
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.165 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Therapeutics BulletinSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207