Dataset on cost-analysis of medication deprescribing scenarios for older adult coverage under public drug benefit programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dataset covers the equations and procedure used for the estimation of an older adult's total annual medication costs, across Canadian provinces and territories; detailed to report pharmacy margin, government share, and patient share. We presented a case of an older adult using 10 different medications commonly used, according to Canadian Institute for Health Information. Eight different deprescribing scenarios were created, based on recommendations from Beers Criteria and the Canadian Deprescribing Network, for the purpose of comparing the cost difference before and after each intervention on pharmacies, patients, and governments. Scenarios included: (1) Stopping an over the counter medication; (2) Discontinuation of a medication; (3) Slow taper of a potentially inappropriate medication; (4) Rapid taper of a potentially inappropriate medication; (5) Switching to safer medication; (6) Dose reduction; (7) Switching to a lower cost medication; (8) Changing from combination to a single medication. The data presented are related to the article entitled "Financial advantage or barrier when deprescribing for seniors: A case based analysis" [1].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".