Exploring polypharmacy with artificial intelligence: data analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common among older adults and it represents a public health concern, due to the negative health impacts potentially associated with the use of several medications. However, the large number of medication combinations and sequences of use makes it complicated for traditional statistical methods to predict which therapy is genuinely associated with health outcomes. The project aims to use artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the quality of polypharmacy among older adults with chronic diseases in the province of Québec, Canada. METHODS: We will use data from the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System (QICDSS). QICDSS contains information about prescribed medications in older adults in Quebec collected over 20 years. It also includes diagnostic codes and procedures, and sociodemographic data linked through a unique identification number for each individual. Our research will be structured around three interconnected research axes: AI, Health, and Law&Ethics. The AI research axis will develop algorithms for finding frequent patterns of medication use that correlate with health events, considering data locality and temporality (explainable AI or XAI). The Health research axis will translate these patterns into polypharmacy indicators relevant to public health surveillance and clinicians. The Law&Ethics axis will assess the social acceptability of the algorithms developed using AI tools and the indicators developed by the Heath axis and will ensure that the developed indicators neither discriminate against any population group nor increase the disparities already present in the use of medications. DISCUSSION: The multi-disciplinary research team consists of specialists in AI, health data, statistics, pharmacy, public health, law, and ethics, which will allow investigation of polypharmacy from different points of view and will contribute to a deeper understanding of the clinical, social, and ethical issues surrounding polypharmacy and its surveillance, as well as the use of AI for health record data. The project results will be disseminated to the scientific community, healthcare professionals, and public health decision-makers in peer-reviewed publications, scientific meetings, and reports. The diffusion of the results will ensure the confidentiality of individual data.
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 | 0.073 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.017 |
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".