Ethnic and Age Disparities in Patients Taking Long-acting Injectable Atypical Antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This study will determine whether different ethnicities and different age groups receive equal amounts of long-acting atypical antipsychotics in comparison to their oral equivalents. Methods Secondary analyses of data from the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Electronic Health Record (total N=63,134 inpatient visits) were performed. Chi-squared statistics were used to compare ethnicity and age with the use of either risperidone injectable or paliperidone palmitate (r-LAIs) versus risperidone oral. Results Among the 63,134 total inpatient visits, there were 3,011 patient visits that included the use of an atypical antipsychotic. Of these 3,011 visits, 452 (15.0%) were on r-LAIs and 2,559 (85.0%) were on risperidone oral. No statistically significant disparities were identified with the use of r-LAIs as compared to oral risperidone amongst ethnic groups (chi-square = 0.88, df = 3, p = 0.831). However, there was a statistically significant difference with the use of r-LAIs as compared to oral Risperidone amongst age groups, favoring younger patients (chi-square = 13.46, df = 3, p < 0.004). Conclusion Our data indicate a lack of ethnic disparities in prescribing long-acting atypical antipsychotics and an increased percentage of younger patients being treated with atypical depot antipsychotics over their oral equivalents.
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".