MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401235925 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2024-esdppp.14

15 Availability of neonatal specific data in labelling of commonly used anti-infective drugs: comparison among three regulatory agencies

2024· article· en· W4401235925 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ajilan Sivaloganathan, Kate Sushko, John van den Anker, Samira Samiee‐Zafarghandy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeonatal intensive care unitMedicineMedical prescriptionSummary of Product CharacteristicsDrugDosingPopulationHealth careFood and drug administrationIntensive care medicinePharmacologyPediatricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Neonatal-specific drug information is critical for optimal pharmacotherapeutic management of neonates in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). To date, the extent of the availability of neonatal-specific drug information for even the most commonly used drugs in the NICU has not been established. Our objective was to examine and compare the quantity and quality of the available neonatal-specific data in the most updated prescription labelling of anti-infective drugs used in the NICU among the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Health Canada (HC).Methodology We identified updated Standard Product Labels (FDA), Product Monographs (HC) and Summaries of Product Characteristics (MHRA) of 31 anti-infective drugs listed among the most common 100 prescriptions in the NICU. We reviewed data regarding approval in neonates, availability and type of neonatal-specific studies, and the presence of neonatal-specific adverse events and warnings. We defined approval as having either a specific indication or dosing information for the specified population.Results We excluded eight drugs due to a lack of access to their most updated labelling. Of the 23 drugs included in the analysis, the FDA approved 13 (57%) and 10 (43%) drugs for term and preterm neonates, respectively, compared to 14 (61%) and seven (30%) by the MHRA and nine (39%) and four (17%) by Health Canada. Term-neonatal specific information was presented for 15 (65%), 18 (78%), and 10 (43%) drugs in FDA, MHRA, and HC labelling, while preterm-neonatal specific information was available for 11 (48%), 10 (43%), and four (17%) drugs, respectively. Six drugs had no neonatal-specific information; nine drugs had no preterm-specific information.Conclusion The global lack of neonatal-specific information for the most frequently used drugs in the NICU poses critical challenges for neonatal care. Health Canada presents the most challenging drug approval agency lagging behind the other jurisdictions in the provision of important neonatal data. There is an emergent need for regulatory mechanisms to ensure the inclusion of existing pediatric data in Canadian drug monographs.

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 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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207