Sex and gender differences in polypharmacy in persons with dementia: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To date, research studies in most disciplines have not made sex-based analysis a priority despite increasing evidence of its importance. We now understand that both sex and gender impact medication prescribing, use, and effect. This is particularly true for older adults with dementia who have alterations in drug metabolism, drug response, and the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. To better understand the influence of sex and gender on drug use in older adults with dementia, we conducted a scoping review. METHODS: This scoping review systematically searched the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest databases to find published reports on polypharmacy in populations of older adults with dementia that included a sex- or gender-based analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 published reports were identified. Findings were cohort studies and case-control trials that commented on sex-related differences in medication use as a secondary analysis to the studies' primary objective. These studies showed that community-dwelling women received more potentially inappropriate medications and more psychotropic medications, while nursing home dwelling men received more potentially inappropriate medications, cholinesterase inhibitors, and antipsychotics. None of the identified studies explicitly examined gender-related differences in medication use. CONCLUSION: This scoping review supports that there is inadequate understanding of both sex and gender differences in drug use in older men and women with dementia. To tailor medication-specific interventions to improve drug therapy for older adults with dementia, it is important that future work includes sex- or gender-based analysis of drug use.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".