Use of neuroleptics: study of institutionalized elderly people in Montreal, Que.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of neuroleptic use in long-term care institutions in the greater Montreal, Que, area and to estimate the extent of use of atypical neuroleptics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study in which single-day chart reviews were conducted to evaluate the prevalence of use of conventional and atypical neuroleptics. SETTING: Ten long-term care institutions in the greater Montreal area. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand, four hundred sixty residents aged 65 years or older living in 10 long-term care institutions in and around Montreal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Single-day medication profiles compiled by institutions' pharmacists. RESULTS: Among patients in the 10 participating institutions, use of neuroleptics ranged from 15% to 37% with a mean of 25.2% (620/2460). Atypical neuroleptics were prescribed to 15.6%, conventional neuroleptics to 7.6%, and a combination of both to 2.0% of the 2460 patients. CONCLUSION: Use of neuroleptics was relatively prevalent, and there was wide use of atypical neuroleptics in Montreal-area long-term care institutions. There is little information on the safety and efficacy of these medications for institutionalized elderly people.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".