MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293572525 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.28.22279291

Medication Clusters at Hospital Discharge and Risk of Adverse Drug Events at 30-days Post-Discharge: A Population-based Cohort Study of Older Adults

2022· preprint· en· W4293572525 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniala L. Weir, Xiaomeng Ma, Lisa McCarthy, Terence Tang, Lauren Lapointe‐Shaw, Walter P. Wodchis, Olavo Fernandes, Emily G. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity Health NetworkTrillium Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionCluster (spacecraft)CohortEmergency medicinePopulationAdverse effectCohort studyHospital dischargePediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: Certain combinations of medications can be harmful and may lead to serious drug-drug interactions. Identifying potentially problematic medication clusters could help guide prescribing decisions in hospital. Objectives: To characterize medication prescribing patterns at hospital discharge and determine which medication clusters are associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) in the 30-days post hospital discharge. Methods: All residents of the province of Ontario in Canada aged 66 years or older admitted to hospital between March 2016-February 2017 were included. Identification of medication prescribing clusters at hospital discharge was conducted using latent class analysis. Cluster identification was based on medications dispensed 30-days post-hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the potential association between membership to a particular medication cluster and ADEs post-discharge, while also evaluating other patient characteristics. Results: 188,354 patients were included in the study cohort. Median age (IQR) was 77 (71-84) and patients had a median (IQR) of 9 (6-13) medications dispensed in the year prior to admission. The study population consisted of 6 separate clusters of dispensing patterns post discharge: Cardiovascular (14%), respiratory (26%), complex care needs (12%), cardiovascular and metabolic (15%), infection (10%) and surgical (24%). Overall, 12,680 (7%) patients had an ADE in the 30-days following discharge. After considering other patient characteristics, those in the respiratory cluster had the highest risk of ADEs (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.08-1.17) compared to all the other clusters, while those in the neurocognitive & complex care needs cluster had the lowest risk (aOR:0.82, 95% CI: 0.77-0.87). Conclusion: This study suggests that ADEs post hospital discharge are linked to identifiable clusters of medications, in addition to non-modifiable patient characteristics, such as age and certain comorbidities. This information may help clinicians and researchers better understand what patient populations and which types of interventions may benefit patients, to reduce their risk of experiencing an ADE. KEY POINTS This study suggests that ADEs post hospital discharge are linked to identifiable clusters of medications, in addition to non-modifiable patient characteristics, such as age and certain comorbidities. This information may help clinicians and researchers better understand what patient populations and which types of interventions may benefit patients, to reduce their risk of experiencing an ADE. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Certain combinations of medications prescribed to patients when they are being discharged from hospital can increase the risk of adverse events after hospital discharge.

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)0.002
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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→