Preventive medication use among persons with limited life expectancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with limited life expectancy (LLE) - less than 1 year - are significant consumers of health care, are at increased risk of polypharmacy and adverse drug events, and have dynamic health statuses. Therefore, medication use among this population must be appropriate and regularly evaluated. The objective of this review is to assess the current state of knowledge and clinical practice presented in the literature regarding preventive medication use among persons with LLE. We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL using Medical Subject Headings. Broad searches were first conducted using the terms 'terminal care or therapy' or 'advanced disease' and 'polypharmacy' or 'inappropriate medication' or 'preventive medicine', followed by more specific searches using the terms 'statins' or 'anti-hypertensives' or 'bisphosphonates' or 'laxatives' and 'terminal care'. Frameworks to assess appropriate versus inappropriate medications for persons with LLE, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use among this population, are presented. A considerable proportion of individuals with a known terminal condition continue to take chronic disease preventive medications until death despite questionable benefit. The addition of palliative preventive medications is advised. There is an indication that as death approaches the shift from a curative to palliative goal of care translates into a shift in medication use. This literature review is a first step towards improving medication use and decreasing polypharmacy in persons at the end of life. There is a need to develop consensus criteria to assess appropriate versus inappropriate medication use, specifically for individuals at the end of life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".