MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6923816513 · doi:10.14288/1.0433640

What is the Common Drug Review?

2023· article· en· W6923816513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrugGovernment (linguistics)Listing (finance)Drug approvalApproved drugProcess (computing)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Therapeutics Letter 61 outlines the Common Drug Review (CDR) process in Canada and uses examples from four drug reviews. The Common Drug Review is a standardized process whereby the relative therapeutic and cost effectiveness of new brand name drugs is reviewed for government drug plans across Canada. The full drug reviews are used by CEDAC to develop listing recommendations and rationales for the recommendations, available on the CDR website: www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr. At the present time full drug reviews are not open to the public.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.250
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.250
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0320.025
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0200.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.013

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207