MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293382228 · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2022.07.029

Barriers to accessing essential medicines for kidney disease in low- and lower middle–income countries|

2022· article· en· W4293382228 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Francis, Muhammad Iqbal Abdul Hafidz, Udeme E. Ekrikpo, Titi Chen, Eranga Wijewickrama, Elliot Koranteng Tannor, Georges Nakhoul, Michelle Wong, Nikhil Pereira-Kamath, Rahul Chanchlani, Robert Kalyesubula, Sabine Karam, Vivek Kumar, Viviane Cálice-Silva, Vivekanand Jha

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential medicinesMedicineContext (archaeology)Public healthPopulationDeveloping countryHealth careEnvironmental healthFamily medicineBusinessEconomic growthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Essential medicines are defined as those that “satisfy the priority health care needs of the population” and selected with due regard to public health relevance based on their efficacy, safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness.1 They are intended to be accessible within the context of functioning health systems in adequate quantities, in the appropriate dosage forms, with ensured quality and adequate information, and at a price the individual and the community can afford. The World Health Organization calls for “improved access to essential, high-quality, safe, effective and affordable medicines and health products.”2 However, nearly 2 billion people have no access to essential medicines globally, particularly in low-income countries (LICs) and lower middle–income countries (LMICs).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations66
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney InternationalSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207