Lessons Learned From Our Elders: How to Study Polypharmacy in Populations With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
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
Polypharmacy is the concurrent use of multiple medications, including both psychotropic and non-psychotropic drugs. Although it may sometimes be clinically indicated, polypharmacy can have a number of negative consequences, including medication nonadherence, adverse drug reactions, and undesirable drug-drug interactions. The objective of this paper was to gain a better understanding of how to study polypharmacy among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). To do this, we reviewed literature on polypharmacy among the elderly and people with IDD to inform future research approaches and methods on polypharmacy in people with IDD. Results identified significant variability in methods used to study polypharmacy, including definitions of polypharmacy, samples studied, analytic strategies, and variables included in the analyses. Four valuable methodological lessons to strengthen future polypharmacy research in individuals with IDD emerged. These included the use of consistent definitions of polypharmacy, the implementation of population-based sampling strategies, the development of clinical guidelines, and the importance of studying associated variables.
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 | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it