MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2167975901

Potential for drug interactions in seniors with osteoarthritis.

2006· article· en· W2167975901 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wayne Putnam, Beverley Lawson, Dawn Frail, Kelly Nicol Bower, G. C. Archibald, Howard Conter, Jim Mackillop

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionOsteoarthritisNova scotiaDrugDrug interactionFamily medicineAlternative medicinePharmacology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To document the potential for drug interactions in seniors with osteoarthritis and to consider the usefulness of computerized support for detecting clinically important interactions. DESIGN: Self-administered mailed survey. One question requested a list of all medications (prescribed drugs and self-care products, including herbal and "natural" health products) taken in the last 7 days. Interactions among all medications were assessed using an on-line software package. SETTING: Three urban primary care practices in Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: Questionnaires were sent to 244 patients aged 65 years and older with physician-confirmed osteoarthritis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of potential interactions and level of clinical significance associated with each. RESULTS: Response rate was 78% (n = 191); 174 respondents (92%) supplied information on medications. Respondents took an average of 4.7 products of which 2.8 were prescription medications and 1.9 were self-care products. A total of 214 potential interactions were identified; 30 (14%) of these were clinically significant. Most interactions involved nonprescription products, most frequently acetylsalicylic acid. Recommendations in 29 of these 30 clinically significant interactions were cautionary, advising such measures as closer monitoring of blood tests, observation for toxic effects, or making patients aware of side effects. Only 1 interaction prompted a recommendation for avoidance. Respondents reported use of 7 different herbal and natural health products; these products were associated with 5 clinically insignificant interactions. CONCLUSION: Risk of drug interactions in seniors might be high, but few interactions are clinically significant. Only 1 found in our study carried a recommendation for avoidance. The on-line program reported all significant interactions, but the high proportion of insignificant interactions (6 : 1) also reported could lead physicians to override computer-generated alerts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies→French-language works237,207→