Is polypharmacy associated with difficulty taking medicines in people aged ≥85 living at home? Findings from the Newcastle 85+ Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear whether polypharmacy is associated with difficulty taking medications amongst people aged ≥85 living at home. This is despite the projected decline in availability of family carers, who may support independent living. Using Newcastle 85+ Study data and mixed-effects modelling, we investigated the association between polypharmacy and difficulty taking medications amongst 85-year-olds living at home, over a 10-year time period. Polypharmacy was not associated with difficulty taking medications as either a continuous (OR = 0.99 [0.91-1.08]) or categorical variable (5-9 medications, OR = 0.69 [0.34-1.41]; ≥10 medications, OR = 0.85 [0.34-2.07]). The significant predictors included disability, visual impairment and cognitive impairment. Our results suggest that people aged ≥85 living at home with disability, visual impairment and/or cognitive impairment will have difficulty taking their medications, regardless of how many they are prescribed. Therefore, healthcare professionals should routinely ask about, assess and address problems that these patient groups may have with taking their medicines, independent of the number of drugs taken.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".