Pharmacoepidemiology in older people: Purposes and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of the benefit/risk ratio of drugs in older adults is essential to optimise medication use. While randomised controlled trials are fundamental to the process of drug development and bringing new drugs to the market, they often exclude older adults, especially those suffering from frailty, multimorbidity and/or receiving polypharmacy. Therefore, it is generally unknown whether the benefits and harms of drugs established through pre-marketing clinical trials are translatable to the real-word population of older adults. Pharmacoepidemiology can provide real-world data on drug utilisation and drug effects in older people with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy and can greatly contribute towards the goal of high quality use of drugs and well-being in older adults. A wide variety of pharmacoepidemiology studies can be used and exciting progress is being made with the use of novel and advanced statistical methods to improve the robustness of data. Coordinated and strategic initiatives are required internationally in order for this field to reach its full potential of optimising drug use in older adults so as to improve health care outcomes.
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 | 0.029 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".