MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increasing Societal Benefit From Cardiovascular Drugs

2022· review· en· W4309497601 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcello Tonelli, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineMineralocorticoid receptorHarmPharmacologyInternal medicineAldosterone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past few years, several innovative treatments for noncommunicable chronic disease have become available, including SGLT2i (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors), GLP-1a (glucagon-like-peptide 1 agonists), ARNI (angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors), and finerenone, a selective nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. Each of these medications improves clinically relevant outcomes when added to existing therapies, and the indications for their use are rapidly expanding. Because existing drug regimens are already complex and costly, ensuring that society derives the maximal benefit from these new agents represents a major challenge. This Primer discusses how society can meet this challenge, which we address in terms of 5 principles: maximizing benefit, minimizing harm, optimizing uptake, increasing value for money, and ensuring equitable access. The Primer is most relevant for stakeholders in high-income countries, but the principles are broadly applicable to stakeholders in other settings, including low- and middle-income countries. We have focused the discussion on SGLT-2i, but the 5 principles herein could be used with reference to ARNI, finerenone, or any other health product.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207