MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391238732 · doi:10.54097/45c92q28

The Advancement of Medical Biotechnology in Developing Countries: Economic Opportunities and Challenges

2023· article· en· W4391238732 on OpenAlexaff
Jiawen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueHighlights in Business Economics and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotechnologyBusinessDeveloping countryEconomic growthEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting from decades ago, medical biotechnology has revolutionized the healthcare industry by offering new hopes for previously untreatable diseases and improving overall health outcomes. To explore the advancements in medical biotechnology, this research essay begins by introducing several examples of medical biotechnologies that are currently in progress of advancement, including CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), Recombinant DNA technology, and Stem Cell Research. Then, it delves into the developments of medical biotechnology in developing countries and examines the opportunities and challenges faced during its progress. The medical biotechnology industry in most developing countries is relatively immature, so new opportunities appear as improving health outcomes and driving economic growth. Nevertheless, the development and adoption of medical biotechnology in developing countries are under different levels of financial burdens, so supports and collaborations on research and development from the healthcare leaders are essential. Finally, this research essay offers some suggestions to the cost reduction strategies of medical biotechnology in developing countries by promoting the hypothetical combination of value-based healthcare and modern monetary theory.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHighlights in Business Economics and ManagementSame topicBiotechnology and Related FieldsFrench-language works237,207