MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Model for an Academia-Industry Collaboration for Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacoepidemiology

2024· preprint· en· W4402274413 on OpenAlexaff
Alfred I. Neugut, Vinu George, Judith S. Jacobson, Michael Parkinson, Leslie E. Segall, Michelle Lebo, Charles C. Branas, Daniel E. Freedberg, Mirza I. Rahman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacovigilancePharmacoepidemiologyBusinessKnowledge managementPharmacologyMedicineComputer scienceDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose We describe a novel model for collaboration between academia and the pharmaceutical industry, focused on post-marketing pharmacovigilance. Methods Otsuka Pharmaceutical, a global Japan-based pharmaceutical company, and Columbia University, a major university, have established a collaboration dedicated to working together in pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing pharmacovigilance. An oversight committee, made up of individuals from each institution, meets on a regular basis to set policy and provide oversight. Results The primary aim of this novel academia-industry collaboration is to provide expert research guidance for the industry pharmacovigilance group on questions involving pharmacoepidemiology. University epidemiologists may also be consulted by other divisions of industry, such as the clinical trials group. The first aim of the collaboration is to provide epidemiologic input to industry by determining the incidence, prevalence, and outcomes of diseases; drafting the epidemiology components of risk management plans for drugs; and planning retrospective database analyses. A second major aim is to provide educational services to industry by conducting workshops on basic epidemiology and biostatistics; leading a monthly lecture/journal club series; hosting seminars on medical topics; and providing a writing workshop to assist in preparing abstracts and papers for presentation and publication. University epidemiologists provide oversight/evaluation through quarterly presentations and updates to the industry partner’s external advisory committee as well as to University leadership. Conclusions This unique academia-pharmaceutical industry collaboration enhances understanding of the medical and epidemiologic challenges faced within a pharmacovigilance department of a global pharmaceutical company. We offer it as a model for others performing mandatory regulatory post-marketing pharmacovigilance activities.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.018
Scholarly communication0.0210.026
Open science0.0050.025
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.009

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207