BEERS CRITERIA-BASED REVIEW OF MEDICATION APPROPRIATENESS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA SENIORS LIVING IN RESIDENTIAL CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to explore the prevalence and predictors of inappropriate prescribing, as defined by the 2002 Beers criteria, in a sample of nursing home residents in British Columbia, Canada (n=,449).Medication-related data were extracted from residents' medication review letters.The overall prevalence of inappropriate prescribing was 29.4 percent.The prevalence rates for the three sub-types of inappropriate prescribing, namely unconditionally inappropriate prescribing, inappropriate drugdisease combinations, and inappropriate doses or durations, were 16.9, 12.4, and 5.1 percent, respectively.The likelihood of inappropriate prescribing was increased with the total number of prescription medications and the number of prescribing physicians.The single most commonly prescribed inappropriate medication was anticholinergics, for residents with cognitive impairment.Clinicians need to be extra vigilant to distinguish between the central nervous system effects of anticholinergic medications and the effects of the underlying disease.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".