MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405053179 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-208613

Risks and Harms to Physicians Reporting Hematologic Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) to Health Authorities

2024· article· en· W4405053179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles L. Bennett, Gretchen Watson, Kevin Knopf, Linda W. Martin, Robert Peter Gale

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineGovernment (linguistics)Adverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : The Southern Network on Adverse Reports group (SONAR) has previously identified severe risks and harms to physicians who reported serious ADRs to Heath Authorities related to solid-tumor oncology pharmaceuticals. (eClinMed, PLOS One, Journal of Scientific and Professional Integrity) We investigated whether similar risks and harms occurred to clinicians/scientists who reported hematology-associated ADRS. Methods: Quotes were abstracted from media coverage or Health Authority hearings for individual hematology drugs. Results : Risks and harms were reported in regulatory agency or government agency meetings by eight clinician/scientists physicians who led phase-3 pharmaceutical-sponsored clinical trials (Olivieri N (U Toronto, NEJM 1996, Singh G, Stanford, unpublished 2004), Buse J (U of North Carolina, unpublished 1999, Henke M (Abteilung Universitatsklinik, Lancet 2003, Mangano D (UCSF, NEJM 2005), Topol E and Nissen S (Cleveland Clinic JAMA 2004), meta-analyses (n = 2) (Bennett C (Northwestern, JAMA 2008, Mangano D (UCSF, NEJM 2006); database analyses (n = 1) (Mangano D (UCSF, NEJM 2004), case-control studies (n = 1) (Brass L, Yale, NEJM 2005) and an independent safety review (n = 1) (Solomon S, Harvard, JAMA 2005) including lawsuits, loss of job, public harassment and loss of grants. Three physicians lost academic positions (Topol, Olivieri, Mangano), two physicians lost federal grants (Olivieri, Bennett), and one FDA scientist (Graham) was demoted. ADR findings resulted in drug removal (n = 7; Vioxx, Avandia, Bextra, Celebrex, Trasylol, Phenyl propanolamine, Hydroxy-ethyl starch), revised indications (n = 2) (Procrit, Aranesp 2007, 2008, 2010)) or 10-year delay in FDA-approval (n = 1) (Fereprox). Median time from FDA approval to ADR identification was 8 years (Range, 4 years (Bextra) to 62 years PPA)). Numbers of persons reportedly seriously injured or dying from 1 ADR was 10,00 (Procrit)- 270,000 (Vioxx) (median 120,000). Manufacturer allegations that resulted in pharmaceutical companies actions included violation of secrecy agreement (n = 2) (Fererpox, PPAs) and public reporting of proprietary data (n = 11). Pharmaceutical companies paid $600,000 (Fereprox) to $5.8 billion (Vioxx) in fines and settlements. Discussion: Twelve physicians experienced severe threats and/or harms after reporting hematologic-associated ADRs to Health Authorities and/or in major publications. We suggest physicians not sign secrecy agreements that might jeopardize public safety (as currently established by almost all US medical universities) and should partner with independent drug safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) on ADR evaluations to monitor safety concerns of drugs and medical devices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueBloodSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207