Litigation associated with 5-alpha-reductase-inhibitor use: A Canadian legal database review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARI) are commonly prescribed medications. There is ongoing controversy about the adverse events of these medications. The aim of this study is to characterize lawsuits in Canada involving medical complications of 5ARIs use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Legal cases were queried from CanLII. Cases were included if they involved a party taking a 5ARI who alleged an adverse event. Relevant full cases were retained, and pertinent characteristics were extracted with the help of a legal expert. RESULTS: Our deduplicated search yielded 67 unique legal documents from December 2013 to February 2019. Twelve of these documents met the inclusion criteria (representing 3 cases, considering each case had several hearings). The medical complaints filed by the plaintiffs were all related to medication side effects (n = 3, 100%). The plaintiffs were commonly patients themselves. Defendants were exclusively pharmaceutical companies. Persistent erectile dysfunction after stopping the medication was cited as a side effect in all complaints. The prescriptions were made for male pattern hair loss (n = 3, 100%) in all cases. All cases represent class actions brought by the plaintiffs, and they have been certified by their respective court. However, the cases are still ongoing. CONCLUSION: While 5ARI use has been linked to undesired sexual side effects, there have been few litigations on this issue in Canada. Persisting sexual dysfunction after stopping the medication is the only complaint presented in legal action. To date, no judgment against a physician or pharmaceutical company was identified. Cases are still ongoing.
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 | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.058 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".