MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160124564 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e31824d5773

Effect of treatment gaps in elderly patients with dementia treated with cholinesterase inhibitors

2012· article· en· W2160124564 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandre Pariente, Annie Fourrier‐Réglat, Fabienne Bazin, Thiérry Ducruet, Jean‐François Dartigues, Alice Dragomir, Sébastien Perreault, Nicholas Moore, Yola Moride

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscontinuationMedicineHazard ratioDementiaConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelInternal medicineCohortInstitutionalisationPediatricsDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of treatment gaps on the risk of institutionalization or death among community-dwelling elderly patients treated with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChIs). METHODS: A survival analysis was conducted among a cohort of community-dwelling elderly patients (age 66+) newly treated with ChIs identified in the Quebec drug claims databases (Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec [RAMQ]) between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2007. Treatment nonpersistence during the year following ChI initiation was defined as treatment discontinuation or gaps of at least 6 weeks. To account for reverse causality, Cox proportional hazard modeling was conducted only among patients who did not discontinue treatment, in order to assess the association between treatment nonpersistence and institutionalization or death. RESULTS: Among the 24,394 elderly ChI users, 4,108 (16.8) experienced a treatment gap during the year following ChI treatment initiation while 596 (2.4%) discontinued their treatment within the first 3 months (early stoppers) and 4,038 (16.6%) after 3 months of treatment (late stoppers). Of all treated patients, 4,409 (18.1%) were institutionalized or died during follow-up. In patients who did not stop their treatment, the risk of institutionalization or death appeared lower in patients who experienced a treatment gap (hazard ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, contrary to what was previously reported in clinical trials, treatment gaps do not compromise the outcome of patients treated with ChIs in a real-life setting.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207