Identifying prescribing cascades in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: The calcium channel <scp>blocker‐diuretic</scp> prescribing cascade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prescribing cascades occur when a physician prescribes a new drug to address the side-effect of another drug. Persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are at increased risk for prescribing cascades. Our objective was to develop an approach to estimating the proportion of calcium channel blocker-diuretic (CCB-diuretic) prescribing cascades among persons with ADRD in two U.S. health plans. METHODS: We identified patients aged ≥50 on January 1, 2017, dispensed a drug to treat ADRD in the 365-days prior to/on cohort entry date. Patients had medical/pharmacy coverage for 1 year before and through cohort entry. We excluded individuals with an institutional stay encounter in the 45 days prior to cohort entry and censored patients based on: disenrollment from coverage, death, or end of data. We identified incident and prevalent CCB use in the 183-days following cohort entry, and identified subsequent incident diuretic use among incident and prevalent CCB-users within 365-days from cohort entry. RESULTS: There were 121 538 eligible patients. Approximately 62% were female, with a mean age of 79.5 (SD ±8.6). Overall 2.1% of the cohort experienced a prevalent CCB-diuretic prescribing cascade with 1586 incident diuretic-users among 36 462 prevalent CCB-users (4.3%, 95% CI 4.1-4.6%]); and there were161 incident diuretic-users among 3304 incident CCB-users (4.9%, 95% CI 4.2-5.7%) (incident CCB-diuretic cascade). CONCLUSIONS: We describe an approach to identify prescribing cascades in persons with ADRD, which can be used to assess the proportion of prescribing cascades in large cohorts. We determined the proportion of CCB-diuretic prescribing cascades was low.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".