Trends in medication use by body mass index and age between 1988 and 2012 in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether the increase in prescription medication use over time differs by age and obesity status is unclear. METHOD: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1988 and 2012 was analyzed (n = 57,543). FINDINGS: Increased medication use over time was seen in older individuals of all body mass index (BMI) classes, with the most prominent increase in those with obesity (p<0.001). For example, older men (≥65y) with obesity took 3.1 more medications between 1988 and 2012 versus 1.5 for normal weight older men. There were minimal differences in medication use over time in younger individuals. In men, the odds of taking antihypertensives, lipid-lowering medication, antidiabetics, and antidepressants increased with age, time and BMI wherein the association between age and medication use was magnified over time (age*time, p<0.05). In women, older women with overweight or obesity had a greater increase in the likelihood of antihypertensives and antidiabetics medication over time (BMI*time, p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Older individuals of all BMI classes may be driving the increase in medication use over time. However, the rise in the likelihood of taking cardiometabolic medications over time was generally not different between those with or without obesity in men with some increases seen in older women. Further research may be required to assess accessibility and barriers to medication use among certain demographics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".