Association between Adherence with an Atypical Antipsychotic and withOther Psychiatric Drugs in Patients with Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using U.S. pharmacy and medical claims, medication adherence patterns of patients with serious mental illness suggest that adherence to atypical antipsychotics may be related to adherence to other prescription drugs. This study investigated whether adherence to an atypical antipsychotic was related to adherence to other prescribed psychiatric drugs using self-reported data from patients with bipolar disorder. METHODS: Daily self-reported medication data were available from 123 patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder receiving treatment as usual who took at least 1 atypical antipsychotic over a 12-week period. Patients took a mean of 4.0±1.7 psychiatric drugs including the antipsychotic. The adherence rate for the atypical antipsychotic was compared to that for other psychiatric drugs to determine if the adherence rate for the atypical antipsychotic differed from that of the other psychiatric drug by at least ±10%. RESULTS: Of the 123 patients, 58 (47.2%) had an adherence rate for the atypical antipsychotic that differed from the adherence rate for at least 1 other psychiatric drug by at least±10%, and 65 (52.8%) patients had no difference in adherence rates. The patients with a difference took a larger total number of psychiatric drugs (p<0.001), had a larger daily pill burden (p=0.020) and a lower adherence rate with the atypical antipsychotic (p=0.007), and were more likely to take an antianxiety drug (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Adherence with an atypical antipsychotic was not useful for estimating adherence to other psychiatric drugs in about half of the patients with bipolar disorder.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".