Medications & Polypharmacy Influence on Recurrent Fallers in Community: a Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize information about the impact different classes of medications and polypharmacy have on recurrent falls, defined as two or more falls in a 12-month period, in community-dwelling older adults. After adjustment for confounders such as age, gender, weight or depression symptoms, the reviewed studies suggested that older adults who use antidepressants, sedatives or hypnotics and anti-epileptics were more likely to experience recurrent falls than non-users. Polypharmacy (use of four or more prescription medications daily) caused 1.5-2 times higher possibility of recurrent falls in older adults. As a high-risk group, recurrent fallers require meaningful intervention. Medications are believed to be a modifiable risk factor in falls prevention; hence, special consideration should be taken to balance the benefit and harm in initiating, continuing or increasing certain classes of medications in elderly recurrent fallers.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it