Intermittent antipsychotic medication and mortality in institutionalized older adults: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic use appears to increase mortality risk among older adults with dementia. Whether this risk is similar for regular or intermittent use is unknown. This scoping review aims to explore the temporal association between antipsychotic use and mortality risk for older institutionalized adults. METHOD: We conducted a scoping review using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries between October 2018 and January 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-eight articles met review criteria. We found that different antipsychotic medications present different safety profiles. The risk of mortality was highest with conventional antipsychotic use and within 40 days of antipsychotic initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional antipsychotic use increases mortality for older institutionalized adults. The evidence for atypical antipsychotics is less clear. Mortality risk appears highest within 30 to 40 days of initiating antipsychotic treatment. This temporal association suggests increased mortality may actually be the result of some previously unrecognized illness, comorbidity, change in health status, or increased frailty, rather than an idiosyncrasy of the antipsychotic itself.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".