Assessing the Scope and Appropriateness of Prescribing Cascades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As originally defined, the term "prescribing cascade" describes a sequence of events that begins when an adverse drug event (ADE) occurs, is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, and a subsequent drug is then inadvertently prescribed to treat the new condition. We refine the definition to encompass both recognized and unrecognized ADEs because they can both contribute to problematic prescribing practices. In addition, we discuss that although prescribing cascades are most commonly viewed as problematic, they may be appropriate and therapeutically beneficial in certain clinical situations. We differentiate between appropriate and problematic prescribing cascades by adopting a similar approach to the framework proposed in the highly acclaimed King's Fund report Polypharmacy and Medicines Optimization. Practical considerations are also presented to aid clinicians in preventing the propagation of problematic prescribing cascades within their clinical practice. Providing new perspectives on the scope and appropriateness of the prescribing cascade concept is an important step in describing clinically relevant cascades and in encouraging safe prescribing practices. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1023-1026, 2019.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".