Reforming Paediatric Drug Regulations in Canada: A Clinical and an Access Imperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children deserve the same high standards for drug safety, efficacy and access as adults.Unfortunately, Canada lags behind leading international regulators in implementing reforms to ensure access to paediatric medications.Paediatric regulations, also known as paediatric rules in the US, include a mandate to submit paediatric data in all new drug applications D I S C U S S I O N A N D D E B AT EHEALTHCARE POLICY Vol.19 No.1, 2023 [55] when paediatric use can be anticipated.Absent paediatric regulations, many medications with paediatric-specific indications in other countries remain "off-label" for Canadian children.In addition to concerns related to off-label drug safety, the absence of paediatric indications prohibits appropriate paediatric-specific health technology assessments and limits the evidence-based listing of paediatric medications on public and private formularies. RésuméLes enfants méritent les mêmes normes élevées d'innocuité, d' efficacité et d' accès aux médicaments que les adultes.Malheureusement, le Canada accuse un retard par rapport aux principaux organismes de réglementation internationaux dans la mise en œuvre de réformes visant à assurer l' accès aux médicaments pédiatriques.Le règlement sur les médicaments pédiatriques comprend le mandat de soumettre des données pédiatriques dans toutes les nouvelles demandes d' approbation de médicaments lorsqu' une utilisation pédiatrique est prévue.En l' absence de règlements pédiatriques, plusieurs médicaments qui ont des indications pédiatriques particulières dans d' autres pays demeurent « non conformes » pour les enfants canadiens.En plus des préoccupations liées à l'innocuité des médicaments non indiquée sur l'étiquette, l' absence d'indications pédiatriques empêche l'évaluation appropriée des technologies de la santé pédiatriques et limite l'inscription des médicaments pédiatriques sur les formulaires publics et privés.
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 | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".