Prostate cancer patients' adherence to medication while on abiraterone acetate (AA) therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
267 Background: Oral medications have become more widely available for treatment of various cancers, and adherence to dosing/ refill patterns, or medication possession, are important considerations for treatment. Abiraterone acetate (AA), prodrug of aberaterone, is a novel oral androgen biosynthesis inhibitor approved for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. This study reports adherence to AA dosing and administration recommendations by prostate cancer (PC) patients as observed in two separate data sources. Methods: PC patients with ≥1 AA prescription fill were identified in two retrospective pharmacy claim data sources: (1) Truven Commercial Claims and Encounters; and (2) Symphony ProMetis. Patients with no evidence of recent chemotherapy (NRC) or with evidence of recent chemotherapy (RC) were identified in the 6 months prior to AA initiation. The average AA daily dose per prescription per patient was reported. To evaluate adherence, the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), a measure of consistency calculated as the sum of the AA days of supply divided by the total number of days between first and end of last AA fill, was assessed for patients with ≥2 AA fills. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. Results: In both datasets the mean medication consistency/MPR was greater than 90% and the mean daily dose was within 1% of the recommended daily dose (1,000 mg). Medication consistency and AA daily dose per patient appeared similar between patients with recent chemotherapy and patients without recent chemotherapy (Table). Conclusions: Results from two observational studies representing > 3,700 PC patients reported high levels of AA adherence to AA dosing and administration consistent with prescribing information. Such data support providers’ understanding of the consistency to which AA treated PC patients adhere to AA medication use. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".