Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) recommends that Iqirvo be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in adults with an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), or as monotherapy in adults who are unable to tolerate UDCA, if certain conditions are met. Iqirvo should only be covered to treat adult patients who have a diagnosis of PBC; who have either not responded adequately to UDCA treatment after taking it for at least a year, with a stable dose maintained for a minimum of 3 months, or who are unable to tolerate UDCA treatment; and who have a total bilirubin level of no higher than 2 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) as well. In addition, patients should have no history or current evidence of other liver diseases. Initial coverage for Iqirvo should not exceed 12 months. Iqirvo should only be reimbursed if prescribed by or in consultation with a specialist, such as a gastroenterologist, a hepatologist, or other physicians with expertise in managing PBC, and if the cost of Iqirvo is reduced. For renewal after the initial authorization, Iqirvo should follow the same renewal criteria as obeticholic acid, in accordance with the reimbursement criteria of each public drug plan for treating PBC. For ongoing renewals, physicians must confirm that the patient’s initial response to Iqirvo achieved during the first 12 months has been maintained. Renewal of coverage should be assessed on an annual basis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".