Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board‐Certified Head and Neck Surgeons Between 2016 and 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese head and neck surgeons and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Study Design Cross‐sectional analysis. Setting Japan. Methods This study evaluated personal payments concerning lecturing, consulting, and writing paid by 92 major pharmaceutical companies to all Japanese head and neck surgeons board‐certified by the Japan Society for Head and Neck Surgery between 2016 and 2019. The payments were descriptively analyzed and payment trend were assessed using population‐averaged generalized estimating equations. Further, the payments to board executive board members with specialist certification were also evaluated separately. Results Of all 443 board‐certified head and neck surgeons in Japan, 365 (82.4%) received an average of $6443 (standard deviation: $12,875), while median payments were $2002 (interquartile ranges [IQR] $792‐$4802). Executive board specialists with a voting right received much higher personal payments (median $26,013, IQR $12,747‐$35,750) than the non‐executive specialists (median $1926, IQR $765‒$4134, p < .001) and the executive board specialists without a voting right (median $4411, IQR $963‐$5623, p = .015). The payments per specialist and prevalence of specialists with payments annually increased by 11.4% (95% CI: 5.8%‐17.2%; p < .001) and 7.3% (95% CI: 3.8%‐11.0%; p < .001), respectively. Conclusion There were increasingly widespread and growing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies among head and neck surgeons in Japan, alongside of introduction of novel drugs. The leading head and neck surgeons received much higher personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, and no sufficient regulation was implemented by the society in Japan.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".