MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400460372 · doi:10.1111/jgs.19071

Sex differences in patterns of potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug reactions in hospitalized older people: Findings from the <scp>SENATOR</scp> trial

2024· article· en· W4400460372 on OpenAlexaff
Denis O’Mahony, Alfonso J. Cruz‐Jentoft, Aðalsteinn Guðmundsson, Roy L. Soiza, Mirko Petrović, Antonio Cherubini, Stephen Byrne, Paula A. Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersUniversity College CorkEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioFemale sexDrug reactionSex characteristicsRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineAdverse effectPharmacoepidemiologyPediatricsDrugMedical prescriptionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older women experience more adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than older men. However, the underlying basis for this sex difference is unclear. Sex (biological status) and/or gender (sociocultural constructs) influences on patterns of inappropriate prescribing in multimorbid older adults may be one reason for this ADR sex difference. In this secondary analysis, we examined whether incident ADR sex differences could be related to concurrent sex differences in potentially inappropriate prescribing. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective secondary analysis of sex differences in the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), and ADRs among the 1537 participants (47.2% female, median [IQR] age 78 [72-84] years) was undertaken in the SENATOR clinical trial database, conducted in six large European medical centers. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We looked specifically for male/female differences relating to PIMs and PPOs (defined by STOPP/START version 2 criteria) identified within 48 h of acute hospitalization. We also assessed sex differences for ADRs identified at 14 days from admission or discharge, whichever came first. ADRs were assessed by blinded endpoint adjudication panel consensus. RESULTS: During hospitalization, significantly more females experienced ≥1 ADR compared to males (28% and 21%, respectively; odds ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.10-1.78, p < 0.005). Nine of the 11 STOPP-criteria PIMs showing a significant sex difference occurred more often in females. Of the four START-criteria PPOs showing a significant sex difference, all occurred more often in females. Some sex-associated PIMs reflect higher prevalence of related conditions in older women. CONCLUSION: We conclude that specific STOPP-criteria PIMs and START-criteria PPOs were identified more frequently in older women than older men during acute hospitalization, possibly contributing to higher ADR incidence in older women. Prescribers should appreciate sex differences in exposure to potentially inappropriate prescribing and ADR risk, given the preponderance of older women over older men in most clinical settings.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207