The appropriateness and persistence of testosterone replacement therapy in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the concordance between testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) use and established reimbursement criteria, as well as compare the persistence of use among available formulations (injectable, oral, topical gel, transdermal patch) among elderly men in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of men aged 66 years or older in Ontario newly treated with testosterone between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012 using linked health administrative data. Continuous use was defined on the basis of prescription refills issued within 180 days of the preceding prescription. We studied men who received at least two consecutive TRT prescriptions. We estimated the prevalence of hypogonadism, human immunodeficiency virus, specialist visits and lab tests for serum testosterone prior to initiation of TRT to investigate concordance with prescribing criteria. We also performed a Kaplan-Meier analysis to test for differences in the median time to discontinuation among formulations. RESULTS: Among the 4797 men who received at least two TRT prescriptions, only 38.7% met the reimbursement criteria for use prior to initiating therapy. The median time to discontinuation differed significantly among formulations and was longest among recipients of oral TRT products (383 days), and lower for recipients of topical gels (319 days), injectable (283 days) and transdermal patches (160 days; Log-rank test p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of older men in Ontario do not appear to meet reimbursement criteria prior to commencing therapy, and many discontinue TRT within a year of initiation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".