Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is estimated that approximately half of adults, older than 65 years of age, have been prescribed potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). This study's objective was to determine the prevalence of PIM use among older patients. Two retrospective chart reviews were performed on 200 and 164 older patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) at outpatient geriatrics clinics at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital (Glenrose) in 2012-13 and at the Misericordia Community Hospital (Misericordia) in 2016-17, respectively. Outcome measures included demographics; prevalence of PIM use; common PIMs used; whether PIM use was addressed, and if so, how; and total number of oral medications. At the Glenrose, the prevalence of PIM use was 45 per cent (90/200). Of the 90 patients who had used PIMs, 46.7 per cent (42/90) had at least one of their medications stopped or modified. At the Misericordia, the prevalence of PIM use was 57.3 per cent (94/164). Of the 94 patients who used PIMs, 47.9 per cent (45/94) had at least one of their medications stopped or modified. These results suggest that an increased awareness of PIM among physicians is needed to further decrease PIM use.
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 | 0.000 | 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".