MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399749747 · doi:10.1007/s40264-024-01444-2

Proceedings of the Canadian Medication Appropriateness and Deprescribing Network’s 2023 National Meeting

2024· editorial· en· W4399749747 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tiphaine Pierson, Verna Arcand, Barbara Farrell, Camille Gagnon, Larry Leung, Lisa McCarthy, Andrea Murphy, Nav Persaud, Lalitha Raman‐Wilms, James Silvius, Michael A. Steinman, Cara Tannenbaum, Wade Thompson, Johanna Trimble, Cheryl A Sadowski, Emily G. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Safety · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health ServicesAlberta HealthSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaTrillium Health CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalBruyèreMcGill UniversityAssembly of First NationsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of WaterlooDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineDeprescribingBeers CriteriaFamily medicinePolypharmacyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polypharmacy, often defined as the use of five or more medications, is associated with a higher incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], and strongly linked to patient falls, cognitive impairment, hospitalizations, and death [ 1 ]. Despite these risks, polypharmacy represents a growing problem in many countries [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. In Canada, approximately two thirds of adults over the age of 65 years take five or more prescription medications, and about a quarter (26.5%) take ten or more [ 8 ]. Factors including sex, income, and education are associated with polypharmacy, with higher rates observed in women, people of low income, and of lower education [ 9 ]. Polypharmacy is also costly, and represents an environmental burden, with medication production and disposal contributing to the healthcare sector’s carbon footprint [ 10 , 11 ].

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug SafetySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207