Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic alterations in older people with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The number of people with dementia internationally is increasing. Older adults with dementia are prescribed multiple medications, both to treat dementia symptoms and to manage their other medical conditions. Dementia is correlated with increasing age and frailty; this provides insight into how the efficacy and toxicity of medications may be altered in people with dementia. Areas covered: This review discusses the current evidence of the alterations in pharmacokinetics that can occur with aging, frailty and in people with dementia. The evidence is presented via the four primary pharmacokinetic processes (absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination). Additionally, distribution into the brain, sex considerations and potential pharmacodynamic alterations in older people with dementia are discussed. Expert opinion: While the evidence is limited, people with dementia appear to be at a higher risk of toxicity of some medications due to altered pharmacokinetic processes and pharmacodynamics. There are a number of limitations to the research and there are still significant gaps in knowledge in this field. Proactive, ongoing review of the appropriateness of choice of medication, dose and whether or not a medication is required at all is necessary for achieving quality use of medications in people living with dementia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".