MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206578752 · doi:10.1002/alz.055644

Determinants of polypharmacy in patients with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia

2021· article· en· W4206578752 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shadi Zarei, Samira Choudhury, Amer M. Burhan, Li Chu, Sarah Colman, Peter Derkach, Sarah Elmi, Maria Hussain, Zahinoor Ismail, Vasavan Nair, Soham Rej, Aviva Rostas, Tarek K. Rajji, David L. Streiner, Sanjeev Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesHotchkiss Brain InstituteMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversity of CalgaryWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoWest Park Healthcare CentreQueen's UniversityToronto Dementia Research AllianceParkwood InstituteCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypharmacyDementiaMedicineConcomitantPsychomotor agitationPsychiatryGeriatricsLogistic regressionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Polypharmacy is common in patients with dementia and is associated with several adverse effects. Factors associated with polypharmacy in patients with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are unclear. This study examined the factors associated with general and psychotropic polypharmacy in patients with BPSD. Method Baseline data was obtained from the Standardizing Care for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Quality of Life in Dementia (StaN) study, a multisite trial currently underway in Canada at long‐term care and inpatient sites. The Cohen‐Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) was used to assess agitation and aggression and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS‐G) was used to assess medical burden. General polypharmacy was defined as concomitant use of five or more scheduled medications of any kind, and psychotropic polypharmacy was defined as concomitant use of two or more scheduled psychotropic medications. Correlation, and linear and logistic regressions were performed to investigate the associations of agitation/aggression and polypharmacy. Result 120 participants were enrolled [50.4% female; mean (SD) age= 80.25 (9.75) years]. 80.2% of participants had general polypharmacy and 56.2% had psychotropic polypharmacy. Total number of medications was positively correlated with CIRS_G (Spearman's r = 0.28, p = 0.002). In linear regression models, CMAI‐frequency (R2 = 0.137, p = 0.003, B = 0.269, p = 0.003) and CMAI‐disruptiveness (R2 = 0.136, p = 0.003, B = 0.268, p = 0.004) were significant predictors, whereas age, current psychiatric diagnosis and setting (inpatient versus long‐term) did not predict the number of psychotropics. Similarly in logistic regression models, CMAI‐frequency (R2 = 0.142, p = 0.002, Wald = 6.93, p = 0.008) and CMAI‐disruptiveness (R2 = 0.141, p = 0.002, Wald = 6.86, p = 0.009) were significant predictors, whereas age, current psychiatric diagnosis and setting did not predict psychotropic polypharmacy. Conclusion As expected, medical burden was positively correlated with general medication use. On the other hand, BPSD (agitation and aggression) were associated with total number of psychotropic medications, rather than psychiatric morbidity, age or setting. Improving the management of agitation/aggression might be an important factor in addressing polypharmacy in patients with BPSD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→