MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404807745 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6946

Polypharmacy and frequently used medications before death in Qc: any differences between persons with and without dementia?

2024· article· en· W4404807745 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Isabelle Vedel, Caroline Sirois, Louis Rochette, Marc Simard, Victoria Massamba, Shanna Trenaman, Jasmine Mah, Abby Emdin, Claire Godard‐Sebillotte

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Family Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypharmacyDementiaMedicinePsychiatryGerontologyPsychologyIntensive care medicineDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Few studies have looked at polypharmacy and frequently used medications in the last months of life of persons with dementia (PWD), where the benefits of some medications are uncertain. We still do not know to which extent the medication differs between PWD and persons without dementia (PWOD) near the end of life. Objective: To describe the prevalence of polypharmacy and frequently used medications in the 90 days before death in PWD and PWOD. Study Design: Repeated yearly cohort study from 2007 to 2022. Dataset: Provincial database linking 5 Quebec health administrative databases. Population Studied: Community-dwelling decedents aged 65 years and 90 days and older at the date of death, with and without dementia. Outcome Measures: Prevalence of polypharmacy and frequently used medications are measured in the 90 days before death. Polypharmacy is defined as taking 5+, 10+, 15+ and 20+ different medications on the 90 days period and is identified using the common drug denomination classification system. We measured on the last cohort the 25 most frequent medications. We performed descriptive analysis with direct age standardization. Results: In the 15 cohorts, 101 142 PWD and 417 418 PWOD were included; mean age 86,5 and 80,1; female 59,2% and 47,1% respectively for PWD and POWD. Average age-standardized number of medications was similar in both group and rose through the years, ranging from 10,8 in 2007 to 12,6 in 2021. Polypharmacy (5+, 10+, 15+, 20+) was similar in both group for the 15 years. PWD had more psychoactive medication than PWOD (3/25 vs 0/25) and PWD had less palliative care medication (4/25 vs 7/25). Conclusion: PWD and PWOD are affected by polypharmacy, even in the 90 days before death. This problem tends to increase through the years despite the growing literature on negative impact of polypharmacy, especially in PWD. Our study shows that there are important differences in categories of medication. PWD have more psychoactive medication and have less palliative care medication that PWOD, suggesting less access to palliative care. Our results will be used to raise awareness among clinicians, managers, and decision-makers on the extent of polypharmacy at the end of life among all older persons in Quebec and the suspected gap in palliative care access for PWD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.443
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.054 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Family MedicineSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207