Prescription pattern analysis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a cross-sectional study in Isfahan, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) are at a higher risk of polypharmacy and more susceptible to irrational prescriptions; therefore, pharmacological therapy patterns are important to be monitored. The primary objective of this study was to highlight current prescription patterns in T2DM patients and compare them with existing Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. The second objective was to analyze whether age and gender affect prescription patterns. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted using the Iran Health Insurance Organization (IHIO) prescription database. It was mined by an Association Rule Mining (ARM) technique, FP-Growth, in order to find co-prescribed drugs with anti-diabetic medications. The algorithm was implemented at different levels of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system, which assigns different codes to drugs based on their anatomy, pharmacological, therapeutic, and chemical properties to provide an in-depth analysis of co-prescription patterns. RESULTS: Altogether, the prescriptions of 914,652 patients were analyzed, of whom 91,505 were found to have diabetes. According to our results, prescribing Lipid Modifying Agents (C10) (56.3%), Agents Acting on The Renin-Angiotensin System (C09) (48.9%), Antithrombotic Agents (B01) (35.7%), and Beta Blocking Agents (C07) (30.1%) were meaningfully associated with the prescription of Drugs Used in Diabetes. Our study also revealed that female diabetic patients have a higher lift for taking Thyroid Preparations, and the older the patients were, the more they were prone to take neuropathy-related medications. Additionally, the results suggest that there are gender differences in the association between aspirin and diabetes drugs, with the differences becoming less pronounced in old age. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all of the association rules found in this research were clinically meaningful, proving the potential of ARM for co-prescription pattern discovery. Moreover, implementing level-based ARM was effective in detecting difficult-to-spot rules. Additionally, the majority of drugs prescribed by physicians were consistent with the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".