Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions between physicians and detailers (even when legitimate ones) raise scientific and ethical questions. In Portugal little thinking and discussion has been done on the subject and the blames for bribery have monopolized the media. This work intended to review what has been said in medical literature about these interactions. How do physicians see themselves when interacting with pharmaceutical companies and their representatives? Do these companies in fact change their prescriptive behaviour, and, if so, how do they change it? How can physicians interact with detailers and still keep their best practice? A Medline research, from 1966 till 2002, was performed using the key-words as follows. A database similar to Medline but concerning medical journals published in Portugal, Index das Revistas Médicas Portuguesas, was also researched from 1992 to 2002. Pharmaceutical companies are profit bound and they allot promoting activities, and detailing in particular, huge amounts of money. Most physicians hold firmly to the belief that they are able to resist and not be influenced by drug companies promotion activities. Nevertheless, all previous works on literature tell us the opposite. Market research also indicates that detailers effectively promote drug sales. Various works also suggest that the information detailers provide to physicians may be largely incorrect, even comparing it to the written information provided by the pharmaceutical companies they work for. The frequency at which portuguese physicians (especially family physicians) contact with pharmaceutical sales representatives is higher than the frequency reported in countries where the available studies come from (namely, Canada and the United States of America). This may put portuguese physicians at a higher risk, making it imperative that work and wide debate are initiated among the class.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".