Drug Use among Seniors on Public Drug Programs in Canada, 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seniors take more drugs than younger Canadians because, on average, they have a higher number of chronic conditions. Although taking multiple medications may be necessary to manage these conditions, it is important to consider the benefits and risks of each medication and the therapeutic goals of the patient. This article provides an in-depth look at the number and types of drugs used by seniors using drug claims data from the CIHI's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System Database, representing approximately 70% of seniors in Canada. In 2012, almost two-thirds (65.9%) of seniors on public drug programs had claims for five or more drug classes, while 27.2% had claims for 10 or more, and 8.6% had claims for 15 or more. The most commonly used drug class was statins, used by nearly half (46.6%) of seniors. Nearly two-thirds (60.9%) of seniors living in long-term care (LTC) facilities had claims for 10 or more drug classes. Proton pump inhibitors were the most commonly used drug class among seniors living in LTC facilities (used by 37.0% of seniors in LTC facilities), while statins ranked seventh (29.8%).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".