A207 UNDISCLOSED PAYMENTS BY PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS TO AUTHORS OF ENDOSCOPY GUIDELINES IN THE UNITED STATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) may influence practice recommendations. It is therefore important to evaluate the completeness of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) declarations among CPG authors. We aimed to assess the prevalence, nature and magnitude of undisclosed industry payments to authors of endoscopy guidelines. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of undisclosed industry payments to authors of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines published by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) between 2014 and 2017. For each CPG author, we identified industry payments through the payment declaration section of CPGs and the Centre for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMS-OP) database. We calculated the prevalence of CPG authors with declared and undeclared payments, as well as the monetary value and type of undeclared payments. For each CPG, payments were assessed for the calendar year of publication and the calendar year prior. Thirty-eight CPGs were included in the analysis comprising 581 author entries (90 unique individuals; 66.8% male, 92.8% physicians, 65.4% affiliated with an academic hospital). Payments were disclosed in the CPG document by 126 authors (21.7%). A CMS-OP record was identified for 460 authors (79.2%), and of those – 406 (88.3%) had undeclared payments over a two-year period. Of those, 97 (23.9%) authors received undisclosed payments relating directly to a product or service addressed in the CPG. Undisclosed payments were reported as general payments (mean US$33,142) or research funding (mean US$22,883). Undisclosed payments were received from a mean of 4 payers (range 1–19). There is a high burden of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States. Given the potential impact of these undisclosed payments on CPGs, stricter policies on conflict of interest disclosures are needed. 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 | 0.018 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".