[RATIONAL DE-PRESCRIBING TO TREAT POLYPHARMACY - COUNTERING THE FIRST IATROGENIC EPIDEMIC].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Improved medical technology is associated with rapidly growing sub-populations suffering from incurable co-morbidities for prolonged periods of time before death. Although there is no evidence based medicine (EBM) proving positive benefit/risk ratios for most medications in these sub-populations, it is evident that they are attended by an increased number of specialists, each of whom add medications based on "their" guidelines. Eventually, more people suffer from inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy (IMUP); IMUP's negative medical, economic and social consequences represent the 21st-century iatrogenic pandemic. Many barriers interfere with attempts to de-prescribe: The myth "drugs=health" is a deep-rooted value; de-prescribing is automatically perceived negatively; physicians are not trained to de-prescribe; and discussing de-prescribing with the patient/family is time consuming. In an era of defensive medicine, physicians have fears of lawsuits, of patient/family's reactions, fears of not following all guideline recommendations, despite the age-related decrease in their benefit/risk ratio. Like other pandemics, combined international efforts are required in order to manage IMUP effectively. The International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy (IGRIMUP) was established and has begun sowing the seeds of global collaboration. Partnership with patients/families in decision-making is essential in geriatric-palliative ethical approaches, to overcome barriers to de-prescribing. Borrowing the language of epidemics, several approaches of "curing the infected" (reducing polypharmacy) were suggested; Israeli studies have proven improved functional, mental and cognitive status and patient/family satisfaction, following massive de-prescribing, compared with those who adhered to standard recommendations. "Immunization" (prevention), should concentrate on early education of professionals and laymen about IMUP and de-prescribing. Rational de-prescribing represents "a triple-win-win game"- improves life quality in the last years of life and has huge economic benefits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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".