MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High-Risk Medications in Persons Living With Dementia

2024· article· en· W4403586716 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineDeprescribingDementiaBeers CriteriaPolypharmacyAnticholinergicPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectDiseasePsychiatryIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) and Alzheimer disease-related dementias (ADRD) may be at increased risk for adverse outcomes relating to inappropriate prescribing of certain high-risk medications, including antipsychotics, sedative-hypnotics, and strong anticholinergic agents. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a patient/caregiver and prescriber-mailed educational intervention on potentially inappropriate prescribing to patients with AD or ADRD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, open-label, pragmatic randomized clinical trial, embedded in 2 large national health plans, was conducted from April 2022 to June 2023. The trial included patients with AD or ADRD and use of any of 3 drug classes targeted for deprescribing (antipsychotics, sedative-hypnotics, or strong anticholinergics). Interventions: Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: (1) a mailing of educational materials specific to the medication targeted for deprescribing to both the patient and their prescribing clinician; (2) a mailing to the prescribing clinician only; or (3) a usual care arm. Main Outcomes and Measures: Analysis was performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach. The primary study outcome was the dispensing of the medication targeted for deprescribing during a 6-month study observation period. Secondary outcomes included changes in medication-specific mean daily dose and health service utilization. Results: Among 12 787 patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 8742 (68.4%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 77.3 (9.4) years. The cumulative incidence of being dispensed a medication targeted for deprescribing was 76.7% (95% CI, 75.4-78.0) in the patient and prescriber mailing group, 77.9% (95% CI, 76.5-79.1) in the prescriber mailing only group, and 77.5% (95% CI, 76.2-78.8) in the usual care group. Hazard ratios were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.94-1.04) for the patient and prescriber group and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.96-1.06) for the prescriber only group compared with the usual care group. There were no differences between the groups for secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest medication-specific educational mailings targeting patients with AD or ADRD and their clinicians are not effective in reducing the use of high-risk medications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05147428.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.300 · 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