MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747351937 · doi:10.2217/cer-2017-0043

Real-world adherence and economic outcomes associated with paliperidone palmitate versus oral atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients with substance-related disorders using Medicaid benefits

2017· article· en· W2747351937 on OpenAlexaff
Kruti Joshi, Marie‐Hélène Lafeuille, Rhiannon Kamstra, Sean Tiggelaar, Patrick Lefèbvre, Edward Kim, Yong Yue, Neeta Tandon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaliperidone PalmitateMedicineAntipsychoticSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)MedicaidPaliperidoneRisperidonePsychiatryInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Compare medication utilization, costs and healthcare resource use in schizophrenia patients with substance-related disorders initiated on once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) or an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA). MATERIALS & METHODS: Data from six Medicaid states (07/2009-03/2015) were used to compare outcomes between PP1M and OAA patients. RESULTS: PP1M patients had higher 12-month antipsychotic adherence and persistence than OAA patients. PP1M patients had lower medical (mean monthly cost difference [MMCD] = US$-191, p = 0.020), higher pharmacy (MMCD = US$250, p < 0.001) and similar total costs (MMCD = US$59, p = 0.517) during the overall follow-up. PP1M patients had lower rates of outpatient visits and inpatient days but higher rates of mental health-related utilization. CONCLUSION: PP1M was associated with higher antipsychotic adherence and persistence, and similar total costs versus OAA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207