Persistence and Adherence with Dementia Pharmacotherapy: Relevance of Patient, Provider, and System Factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a comprehensive review of studies examining adherence and (or) persistence with dementia pharmacotherapy during the past decade, including a summary of the key patient-, drug-, system-, and provider-level factors associated with these measures. Estimates of adherence and 1-year persistence to these drugs have ranged from 34% to 94% and 35% to 60%, respectively. Though many studies reported nonsignificant associations, there are data suggesting that patient age, sex, ethnoracial background, socioeconomic status, and region-specific reimbursement criteria, as well as the extent and quality of interactions among patients, caregivers, and providers, may influence persistence with pharmacotherapy. As many studies relied on administrative data, limited information was available regarding the relevance of patient's cognitive and functional status or the importance of caregiver involvement or assistive devices to adherence or persistence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it