MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099922652

© 2008 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

2015· article· en· W7099922652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlanzapineRisperidoneQuetiapinePublic healthHealth careDrugPharmacovigilanceAntipsychotic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concern is growing over the effectiveness of actionstaken by drug regulatory agencies on safety infor-mation that becomes available to them after a drug has been licensed and marketed.1–3 Drug regulators such as Health Canada hope that disseminating information on new safety concerns through “Dear Healthcare Professional ” let-ters will shift how the stakeholders involved in drug utiliza-tion — manufacturers, public and private insurers, pharma-cists, physicians and the public — think about the trade-off between risks and benefits. Ultimately, this should lead to safer prescribing decisions. The introduction of newer, atypical antipsychotic drugs — risperidone, olanzapine and quetiapine — in the 1990s was heralded as a breakthrough in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychiatric conditions. All 3 of these drugs were ap-proved by Health Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia, but only risperidone was approved for short-term sympto-matic management of inappropriate behaviour due to aggres-sion or psychosis in patients with severe dementia. On Oct. 11, 2002, Janssen-Ortho, the drug company that markets risperidone in Canada, after discussion with Health Canada, sent a letter to health professionals warning of safety concerns with the use of risperidone in elderly patients with dementia. On Mar. 10, 2004, Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of olanzapine, after discussion with Health Canada, sent a letter to health professionals warning of safety concerns with the use of olanzapine in elderly patients with dementia. On June 22, 2005, Health Canada circulated a letter warning health professionals of safety concerns with the use of risperidone, olanzapine or quetiapine in elderly patients with dementia. The content of the 3 warnings is summarized in Table 1; the full text of the letters is available online from Health Canada.4–6 We sought to examine the effects of these warnings on the use of the atypical antipsychotic agents mentioned in the warnings as well as the use of conventional antipsychotic drugs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8120.746

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.275 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRace, History, and American Society→French-language works237,207→