MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884616944 · doi:10.1017/s104161021800087x

Using sedatives–hypnotics or opioids in older adults: a narrow path

2018· editorial· en· W2884616944 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Davies, Benoit H. Mulsant

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissementNational Institutes of HealthCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationFondation Brain CanadaPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsDementiaPsychiatryPsychologyGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This issue of International Psychogeriatrics contains three papers from three continents that explore the use of sedatives-hypnotics and opioids in the treatment of older adults (Hamina et al., 2018; Machado-Duque et al., 2018; Tseng et al., 2018), and a fourth paper reporting on a qualitative study that addresses the broader question of training needs in dementia in a setting of rapid economic and demographic changes (Xu et al., 2018).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207