Adverse events in the elderly population of Manitoba treated with antipsychotic pharmacotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety of antipsychotic use in elderly persons has recently been questioned. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) (extrapyramidal syndromes (EPS), cerebrovascular and cardiac events, and all-cause mortality) in the elderly users of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) was compared. Risks of AEs in antipsychotic-exposed persons and non-exposed individuals were also assessed. A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted in the elderly Manitoba residents who received their first antipsychotic medication between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2007. Cox proportional hazards models were built to compare risks of AEs in FGA and SGA users, as well as in non-exposed subjects. SGAs were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.683, 95% CI 0.577–0.809) and a higher risk of myocardial infarction (1.614 [1.024–2.543]) compared to FGAs. No significant differences between FGAs and SGAs were found for cerebrovascular events, cardiac arrhythmia and congestive heart failure (CHF) but a higher incidence of EPS was observed for FGAs compared to risperidone. Both FGA and SGA users were at a higher risk of cerebrovascular events (FGAs 1.415 [1.114–1.797]; SGAs 1.611 [1.388–1.869]) and CHF (FGAs 1.228 [0.893–1.689]; SGAs 1.242 [1.003–1.536]) compared to non-exposed subjects. Only FGA-users were at a higher risk of death compared to non-exposed subjects (FGAs 1.387 [1.065–1.805]; SGAs 0.824 [0.708–0.959]). Both FGA and risperidone use were associated with a higher risk of EPS (FGAs 3.503 [2.271–5.403]; risperidone 1.733 [1.214–2.472]). Both classes of antipsychotics might lead to potentially life-threatening AEs. Neither FGAs nor SGAs seem to have a superior overall safety profile. Antipsychotic pharmacotherapy should be prescribed in elderly persons after careful consideration of all risks and 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".