Poor Adherence with Hypolipidemic Drugs: A Lost Opportunity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All articles assessing adherence to hypolipidemic drugs were reviewed and categorized by patient population (clinical trial, unselected) and reported as rates of nonadherence and discontinuation. Overall, levels of discontinuation reported in clinical trials (6-31%) and lipid clinics (2-38%) are similar, with unselected populations consistently reporting higher rates (15-78%). Rates of nonadherence in clinical trials and lipid clinics also are comparable, with unselected populations having the highest rates. Across all settings, rates of discontinuation and nonadherence are consistently reported to be poorer with resins and niacin than with hydroxy-6-methylglutamate coenzyme A reductase inhibitors. Adherence to hypolipidemic agents appears to decrease in parallel with level of follow-up. Data evaluating mechanisms of poor adherence are limited. While the search for new, efficacious therapies must continue, efforts focused on improving adherence to proven therapy may have a greater overall impact on health than any single new agent.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it