MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118439447 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190196

Medication use and its impact on high-cost health care users among older adults: protocol for the population-based matched cohort HiCOSTT study

2021· article· en· W3118439447 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Justin Lee, Sergei Muratov, Jean‐Éric Tarride, J. Michael Paterson, Kednapa Thavorn, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Tara Gomes, Wayne Khuu, Hsien Seow, Lehana Thabane, Anne Holbrook

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityInstitute for Work & HealthOttawa HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineCohortPsychological interventionPopulationCohort studyHealth careLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyProtocol (science)DemographyGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health interventions and policies for high-cost health care users (HCUs) who are older adults need to be informed by a better understanding of their multimorbidity and medication use. This study aims to determine the financial contribution of medications to HCU expenditures and explore whether potentially inappropriate prescribing is associated with incident HCU development. METHODS: This is a protocol for a retrospective population-based matched cohort analysis of incident older adult HCUs (those with the highest 5% of costs and 66 years of age or older) in Ontario during fiscal year 2013. We will obtain person-level data for the index year and year before HCU status from health administrative databases and match each HCU to 3 non-HCUs based on age, sex and geographic location. Average annual medication costs (per patient) and the ratio of medication to total health care costs (at population level) will be examined over the HCU transition period and compared with non-HCUs. We will explore potential quality improvement areas for prescribing by analyzing chronic conditions and the use of medications with a strong evidence base for either clinical benefit or risk of harms outweighing benefits in older adults with these diagnoses. The relation between these medication classes and incident HCU status will be explored using logistic regression. INTERPRETATION: Using a matched cohort design and focusing on incident rather than prevalent HCUs, this protocol will explore our hypotheses that medications and the quality of their prescribing may be important triggers of HCU status and facilitate the identification of potential preventive clinical interventions or policies. Dissemination of results will occur via publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at conferences and academic settings, and knowledge translation activities with relevant health system and patient stakeholder groups. STUDY REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT02815930.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207