MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429443653

PHARMACOTHERAPY FOR THE ELDERLY DENTAL PATIENT.

2015· article· en· W2429443653 on OpenAlexaff
Aviv Ouanounou, Daniel A. Haas

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypharmacyMedicinePharmacotherapyPharmacodynamicsDrugIntensive care medicineAdverse effectPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)PharmacokineticsIncidence (geometry)Population ageingPharmacologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current demographic data clearly show that the North American population is aging, and projections suggest that the percentage of older people will increase. The elderly often suffer from multiple chronic conditions that affect their quality of life, use of health services, morbidity and mortality. Also, in those of advanced age, the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of many drugs are altered. Polypharmacy increases the incidence of adverse drug reactions and drug interactions in this population. Thus, the dentist must be continually aware of the pharmacologic status of each patient and consider the likelihood of interactions between drugs prescribed by the dentist, drugs prescribed by the physician and drugs that are self-administered, including over-the-counter medications and natural supplements. In this article, we discuss pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes in the elderly patient, polypharmacy and the changes in prescribing for our dental patients. Specific emphasis is placed on the drugs commonly prescribed by dentists: local anesthetics, analgesics and antibiotics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207