Differences in utilisation of gastroprotective drugs between 2001 and 2005 in Australia and Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare use of histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), 2001-2005, in the elderly and social security beneficiaries in Australia (AUS) and Nova Scotia, Canada (NS). METHODS: Prescription dispensing data were collected for all subsidised H2RAs and PPIs. In AUS, dispensing data for concession beneficiaries were obtained from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme database. In NS, data were sourced from the Pharmacare database. Relevant population data were used to convert to World Health Organisation Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical defined daily doses (2005) per 1000 beneficiaries per day (DDD/1000/day). RESULTS: Overall use of gastroprotective agents was similar and rising in NS and AUS (100-160 DDD/1000/day) over this 5-year time window. However, the proportion of this use accounted for by PPIs was far higher in AUS (over 85% by 2005) than in NS (23% rising to 35% over the 5 years). In AUS, PPI use rose from 50 to about 140 DDD/1000/day over the 5 years, whereas PPI use in NS rose slowly to less than 60 DDD/1000/day by 2005. H2RA use in NS was always high (over 100 DDD/1000/day), whereas in AUS, H2RA use fell from 54 to around 24 DDD/1000/day over this period. CONCLUSIONS: AUS had much higher use of PPIs than NS over 2001-2005. The proportion of PPIs in all gastroprotective agents rose in AUS to be nearly 90%. The differences in utilisation during this time window could lead to differences in health outcomes from either lower gastro-intestinal bleeding risk or higher long-term adverse effects of PPIs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".