MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991010587 · doi:10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103162

Personalised, patient-inclusive clinical medication reviews can reduce drug-related problems in older patients

2019· letter· en· W2991010587 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Acorn

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypharmacyMedicineIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)Alternative medicineClinical trialIntensive care medicineFamily medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on : Verdoorn S, Kwint HF, Blom JW, et al . Effects of a clinical medication review focused on personal goals, quality of life, and health problems in older persons with polypharmacy: a randomised controlled trial (DREAMeR-study). PLoS Med 2019;16:e1002798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002798. A CMR is a structured, critical examination of a patient’s medications with the objective of reaching an agreement about treatment, optimising medicine impact, minimising medication-related issues and reducing waste. Limited evidence exists on the CMR intervention ability to improve patient outcomes. The DREAMeR study looks at polypharmacy in older persons who can benefit from a patient-centred CMR focusing on personal goals, …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207