MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946807152 · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2019.05.010

A review of published anticholinergic scales and measures and their applicability in database analyses

2019· review· en· W2946807152 on OpenAlexaff
Greta Lozano‐Ortega, Karissa Johnston, Antoinette Cheung, Adrian Wagg, Noll L. Campbell, Roger R. Dmochowski, Daniel Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Gerontology and Geriatrics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaBroadcom (Canada)Vancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnticholinergicContext (archaeology)MedicineScale (ratio)PsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Available metrics for characterizing cumulative anticholinergic exposure over time may not be well suited for use across all US data sources. In this review, the properties of existing anticholinergic scales and measures were evaluated to determine their suitability for implementation in observational studies relying on administrative data. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify available anticholinergic scales and measures. Suitability of the identified scales and measures for quantification of anticholinergic exposure was evaluated based on pre-defined criteria. Agreement between selected scales was characterized by the percentage overlap of included drugs and inter-scale Spearman's correlation of scores. RESULTS: Sixteen scales were identified; six were relevant and suitable for the quantification of anticholinergic exposure. When implemented on administrative data the Anticholinergic Drug Scale and Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale demonstrated the most agreement, with an inter-scale correlation coefficient of 0.82. Scale performance varied by outcome of interest, and underlying disease profile of the population of interest. Variability across the two measures ("average daily dose" and "cumulative dose") was observed, with neither considering both dose and anticholinergic potency in score calculations. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate quantification of anticholinergic burden is important in assessing relative risks versus benefits of prescribing anticholinergic medications. In this review, the Anticholinergic Drug Scale and the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale and the average daily dose and cumulative dose measures, were determined to be well suited for the quantification of anticholinergic exposure, particularly in the context of administrative data analyses; however, methods to characterize anticholinergic burden through consideration of both anticholinergic dose and potency are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0220.027
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.292
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Gerontology and GeriatricsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207