Sex/Gender -Based Pharmacology and Statin Utilization Amongst Elderly Patients with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the ten-year trends in utilization of bioequivalent doses of statin amongst elderly patients with diabetes according to sex/gender in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A cohort of patients with diabetes (>65 years) was constructed using the Ontario Diabetes Database Statin utilization data (2003-2012) was obtained from the Ontario Drug Benefit Program for both women and men. Bioequivalent doses for statins were calculated according to the dosing conversion factor in therapeutic interchange programs in clinical practice. Utilization pattern of high potency (Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin) vs. low potency statins (Simvastatin, Lovastatin, Fluvastatin, Pravastatin) were also analyzed. RESULTS: The average bioequivalent Simvastatin utilization in 2003 was 29.22 mg/day for women and 30.35 mg/day for men. By 2008, this gap in dosing was higher for both women and men and by 2013 it had increased to 47.75 mg/day for women and 52.98 mg/day for men. For average number of day supply per year, there was no significant trend of changes over the 10-year period, although the use of high potency statins increased significantly (P<0.001) for both women and men. No differences were seen for sex/gender; either for the 10-year period or for each year. CONCLUSIONS: There has been significant increase in bioequivalent statin utilization amongst elderly patients with diabetes in Ontario; for both men and women. In a publicly-funded healthcare system such as Ontario, there were no sex/gender differences in the utilization of high potency statin (Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin) amongst elderly patient with diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".