F3‐03‐02: EFFECTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE, INDIVIDUALIZED, PERSON‐CENTERED MANAGEMENT (CI‐PCM) PROGRAM ON ANXIOLYTIC MEDICATION USAGE IN PERSONS WITH MODERATE‐TO‐SEVERE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Last year we published the results of a randomized controlled trial of a Comprehensive, Individualized, Person-Centered Management Program (CI-PCM) on persons with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (Reisberg, et al., Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2017). The subject-caregiver dyads randomized to the management program (n=10) showed significant improvements globally, which were approximately 10 times those in the usual community care dyads (n=10). Herein we examined the effects of the CI-PCM intervention on anxiolytic medication usage. Subject charts (N=20), were reviewed by a physician (M.A.) who was blind to the subject group randomization assignment. Group 1 had one subject who was receiving clonazepam at baseline, (0.25 mg, 3 times daily), which was discontinued after 36 days and a second subject who received clonazepam, 0.5 mg weekly at baseline, which was discontinued after 29 days. Group 2 had 1 subject who was started on alprazolam, 0.25 mg twice weekly as necessary on an estimated day 18, subsequently increased to twice daily as needed. Total duration of alprazolam usage was an estimated 180 days. Total estimated duration of the group 1 subjects in the study was 2,112 days and of the group 2 subjects was 2,003 days. We compared anxiolytic medication usage in the 2 study groups. Procedures for these analyses are described in Table 1. Briefly, we considered time off anxiolytics in group 1 as positive, since subjects did not take, or discontinued, anxiolytics, during this period. For group 2, we considered time in which anxiolytics were added as a negative result. We then compared group outcomes. Subsequently, the group blind was broken and the detailed results are shown in Table 1 and summarized below. The difference between the groups in terms of days of anxiolytic medication usage was highly significant (the two-tailed p value < 0.0001), with less usage in subjects randomized to the management program. Since anxiolytic usage is associated with numerous negative outcomes including dependency, seizures upon withdrawal, etc. (see Table 2), the CI-PCM program in this study was associated with an important collateral health benefit in terms of decreasing anxiolytic medication usage by community physicians. Suicidal ideation Coma Visual impairment Seizures Steven-Johnson Syndrome Hepatic Failure Physiological dependence Psychological dependence Amnesia Hallucinations Hostility Psychosis Withdrawal Respiratory depression Depression Memory impairment Confusion Excitabilityl Dyspnea Withdrawal Memory impairment Impaired cognition Depression Confusion Amnesia Dyspnea Hallucinations Psychological depression Physiological depression Hostility Conclusion: The management program was associated with a very highly significant outcome in terms of the discontinuation of anxiolytic medication usage and the ostensible prevention of new anxiolytic medication prescribing by physicians.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".