MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Inappropriate Prescription Drugs by Older People

2002· article· en· W2113021977 on OpenAlex
Joseph T. Hanlon, Kenneth E. Schmader, Chad Boult, Margaret B. Artz, Cynthia R. Gross, Gerda G. Fillenbaum, Christine M. Ruby, Judith Garrard

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionOdds ratioEpidemiologyDrug classConfidence intervalDrugHealth careFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and predictors of inappropriate drug prescribing defined by expert national consensus panel drug utilization review criteria for community-dwelling older people. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Five adjacent urban and rural counties in the Piedmont area of North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: A stratified random sample of participants from the fourth (n = 3,234) and seventh (n = 2,508) waves of the Duke Established Populations for Epidemiological Studies of the Elderly. MEASUREMENTS: The prescribing appropriateness for digoxin, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, histamine(2) receptor antagonists, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants as determined by explicit criteria (through Health Care Financing Administration expert consensus panel drug utilization review criteria for dosage, duplication, drug-drug interactions and duration, and U.S. and Canadian expert consensus panel criteria for drug-disease interactions). Multivariable analyses, using weighted data adjusted for sampling design, were conducted to assess the association between inappropriate prescribing and demographic, health-status, and access-to-healthcare factors cross-sectionally and longitudinally. RESULTS: We found that 21.0 of the fourth wave and 19.2 of the seventh wave participants who used one or more agents from the eight drug classes had one or more elements identified as inappropriate. The therapeutic classes with the most problems were benzodiazepines and NSAIDs. The most common problems were with drug-disease interactions and duration of use. Longitudinal multivariable analyses found that participants who were white (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.67, 95 confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-2.17), were married (AOR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.01-1.93), had arthritis (AOR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.27-2.38), had one or more physical function disabilities (AOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.02-1.96), and had inappropriate drugs prescribed at wave 4 (AOR = 6.87, 95% CI = 5.11-9.22) were more likely to have inappropriate prescribing at wave 7. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that inappropriate prescribing is common among community-dwelling older people and persists over time. Longitudinal studies in older people are needed to examine the impact of inappropriate drug prescribing on health-related outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it