MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966608893 · doi:10.1007/s12325-019-01035-z

An Evaluation of Longitudinal Measures of Anticholinergic Exposure for Application in Retrospective Administrative Data Analyses

2019· article· en· W2966608893 on OpenAlexaff
Greta Lozano‐Ortega, Shelagh M. Szabo, Antoinette Cheung, Brandon T. Suehs, Eleanor O. Caplan, Adrian Wagg, Noll L. Campbell, Roger R. Dmochowski, Basia Rogula, Daniel Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersAstellas Pharma Global DevelopmentAstellas Pharma
KeywordsAnticholinergicMedicineInterquartile rangeAdverse effectRetrospective cohort studyGold standard (test)Internal medicinePotency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As continuous exposure to anticholinergics has been associated with adverse outcomes, accurately measuring exposure is important. However, no gold standard measure is available, and the performance of existing measures has not been compared. Our objective was to compare the properties of the Cumulative Anticholinergic Burden (CAB) measure against two existing measures of anticholinergic exposure and to assess their compatibility for use in observational studies based on claims data. The average daily dose, cumulative dose and CAB measures were evaluated on: the applicability for use with anticholinergic burden scales, the ability to consider duration and/or accumulation of exposure, and consideration of anticholinergic dose, potency, and residual effect. To calculate each measure empirically, Truven MarketScan claims data from 2012 to 2015 were analyzed. Cumulative anticholinergic exposure over 1-year post-enrollment was calculated for each measure using Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale scores. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] and ranges of measure scores, and Spearman’s correlation coefficients between measures, were estimated. Due to the differing methods of calculation, the absolute values of each score cannot be compared. The properties of the different measures varied, with only the CAB considering both dose and theoretical potency. The cohort included 99,742 individuals (mean age = 73.1 years; 54.9% female). Among individuals prescribed anticholinergics ( n = 55,969), 1-year median (IQR) scores based on average daily dose, cumulative dose and CAB measures were 0.9 (0.3–1.5), 16.9 (7.3–33.9) and 203 (68–500), respectively. Measures were highly inter-correlated ( r 2 = 0.74-0.83). Considering both potency and dose, the CAB may prove a more comprehensive measure of anticholinergic burden; however, additional research is necessary to demonstrate whether it has any association with relevant health-related outcomes. Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.

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)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.219
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.219
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207