Appropriateness of Omeprazole Prescribing in Quebec’s Senior Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prescribing omeprazole for the treatment of digestive disorders accounts for an important part of the costs in Quebec's drug benefit plan. In July 1993, the Quebec drug program listed omeprazole, with restriction, in its formulary. On January 1, 1994, this restriction was lifted; since then, omeprazole has been listed in the regular provincial formulary. OBJECTIVE: To describe the appropriateness of initial omeprazole prescribing in the ambulatory senior population of Quebec in the 27 months after being listed without restriction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed using prescription and medical services claims databases of the Quebec drug program. Data were extracted for elderly patients who received their first omeprazole prescription between July 1, 1994 and March 31, 1996. RESULTS: Among the 47,140 first-time users of omeprazole identified, 7516 (15.9%) had had an endoscopy in the previous six months, 2308 (4.9%) were given an antimicrobial agent and omeprazole simultaneously, and 22,730 (48.2%) received omeprazole after prior use of an H2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or a prokinetic drug. A total of 26,525 (56.3%) first-time users were prescribed omeprazole based on at least one of the three criteria listed above. Among these users, 729 (2.8%) received an H2RA concurrently with omeprazole. Altogether, 25,796 (54.7%) first-time users received omeprazole appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Although reimbursement for omeprazole prescriptions has not been restricted in Quebec since January 1, 1994, it was prescribed appropriately for elderly patients in the majority of cases studied.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".