Drug Prescriptions Requiring Compounding at a Canadian University Affiliated Pediatric Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite ongoing international efforts, many drugs administered to children must be compounded from dosage forms designed for adults because they remain unavailable in commercial formulations that suit their needs. Even though oral drug compounding is common in pediatrics, the extent of this practice has not been well described in recent years. This cross-sectional and retrospective study was conducted at a Canadian university-affiliated, 484-bed, tertiary care pediatric hospital and its rehabilitation centre on two randomly selected days. A total of 606 hospitalized children with 5465 prescriptions were included. Overall, compounded drugs for enteral administration (CDEA) represented 13% of all prescriptions (enteral and parenteral) and 23% of prescriptions for enteral administration. Of the 390 prescribed drugs, 122 required compounding. CDEA were mostly liquids (n = 478 [67%]) and mainly included drugs of the central nervous (35%), cardiovascular (21%), and gastro-intestinal (12%) systems. Nearly half (N = 298 [49%]) of children had at least one CDEA prescribed in their medical file. Many CDEA are available as commercial products in other jurisdictions. Collaboration is needed between all stakeholders to make these drugs available to Canadian children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".