Adherence with capecitabine: A population-based analysis based on prescription refill data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patient adherence is important with the increasing use of oral anticancer drugs. Recent studies reported different capecitabine adherence rates based on self-reporting and microelectronic monitoring of the medication bottle. Patient's awareness of being monitored may confound these results. Prescription records provide a larger and more objective dataset for adherence investigation. We report the use of computer algorithm and manual review of prescription and medical documentation to determine the rate of capecitabine adherence. Methods Two years of capecitabine prescription records from five ambulatory cancer centres were reviewed. Prescription data were extracted using a custom Java-based software tool to compare the predicted vs. actual dispensing date. The difference between the dates was the primary adherence measure (altered treatment date incident) and estimated using a computer algorithm and by manual review of medical charts. Results Of 4412 refill prescriptions, 45.2% was associated with an altered treatment date incident based on the initial computer algorithm. This was reduced to 29.5% after adjusting for clinic scheduling processes and 10.2% after manual chart review to adjust for valid reasons for delay. The reasons for altered treatment date incident were not identified in 52.2% of prescriptions. Conclusions Adherence rate of capecitabine based on refill data seem to be high and consistent with other findings based on patient self-report. Population analysis of prescription data with custom computer algorithm may identify trends in capecitabine adherence with some efficiency. Manual review would likely be required to verify these results. The accuracy of using altered prescription refill dates as an adherence measure requires further studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".