Managing osteoarthritis. Medication use among seniors in the community.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine what types of medication seniors in the community were using to manage osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Mailed self-administered survey. SETTING: Three family medicine community practice sites in cities in Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: All seniors (aged 65 and older) on the electronic record of each practice site with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of OA (N = 244). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of seniors using prescribed medications or self-care products (nonprescribed medications and herbal and natural health products) for OA. RESULTS: Response rate was 78%. About 15% were using no medication, 74% were using at least one type of self-care product (60% were using nonprescribed medications, and 45% were using herbal and natural health products), and 52% were using prescribed medications alone or in combination with self-care products. CONCLUSION: Seniors' use of prescribed and self-care products for OA is very high. Physicians must be aware that patients seeking prescriptions likely are also using self-care products. The potential for drug interactions is high; patients should be made aware of the risks associated with taking multiple products.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".