MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401236220 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2024-esdppp.34

34 Pharmacotherapy-related practices and skills as reported by attendees of the neonatal online training and education (NOTE) course on neonatal clinical pharmacology

2024· article· en· W4401236220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karel Allegaert, Dotan Shaniv, Sinno H. P. Simons, Robert B. Flint, Anne Smits, Mike Hall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyPharmacistMedicineClinical pharmacologyPharmacotherapyFamily medicineDrug reactionPharmacyPediatricsPharmacologyDrugNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction We intended to get a snapshot of pharmacotherapy-related practices at the initiation of the 2022 clinical pharmacology NOTE course. 1 Besides guiding education, this also informs us of contemporary practices, research or additional needs of early career colleagues.Methods The online questionnaire was developed by the NOTE content coordinator of the pharmacology module (KA), subsequently distributed to the NOTE pharmacology faculty for input. Topics covered were: (1)Who do you contact with drug-related questions? (2)Does a pharmacist visit your unit? (3)Have you ever reported an adverse drug reaction (ADR)? (4)What information sources do you use? (5)Have you ever assisted in a trial as (co)investigator? (6)What are the top 5 prescribed drugs in your unit?Results Fifty three (77%) responses were received from 69 participants (United Kingdom 15, Qatar 7, India 5, Trinidad/Tobago 5, Ireland 5, Emirates 5, Palestinian Authority 4, Norway 4, Nigeria 3, Denmark 2, Canada 2, Zambia 2, Mauritius 2, and Bahrain, Japan, Kenya, Iceland, Indonesia, Malta, Portugal, United States), mainly doctors (64). On Q1, colleague-neonatologists (39), external sources/formularies (5), or pharmacists (9) were mentioned. Q2: 27 (39%) reported regular/daily visits of a pharmacist, 9 weekly, 17 had no structured visits. Q3: 17 (32%) have reported an ADR on at least one occasion. Q4: Information sources (formulary) used by the respondents were BNFc (22), NeoFax (through Micromedex) (21) Neonatal Formulary (3) or Lexicomp (through UpToDate) (5). Others (25) mentioned local, regional or national formularies. Q5: Six respondents had assisted at least in one drug research trial. Q6: The top 5 drugs prescribed by the respondents were caffeine, gentamicin, benzylpenicillin, ampicillin, amikacin. Discussion This snapshot reflects large heterogeneity in practices (who to consult for drug-related questions, access to pharmacist, information sources) and experiences (ADR reporting, trial involvement), and provides guidance on needs (pharmacists, ADR reporting, information sources awareness) on pharmacotherapy. The top 5 drugs reflect the common use of antibiotics. Conclusions The results of this questionnaire reflect needs to improve our practices, by raising awareness of formularies, ADR reporting or a broader involvement in clinical trials. Questionnaires are useful to learn from and interact with NOTE participants.Reference https://moodle.neonataltraining.eu/

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.428 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207