Sedative co-medication patterns across frailty states in people with HIV: a network-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with HIV are living longer, but frailty may increase vulnerability to adverse drug interactions, particularly with sedative medications. AIM: To describe sedative co-medication patterns across frailty states using network-based analysis, and to identify key medications driving interaction complexity. METHOD: This cross-sectional study analyzed 321 participants using sedatives from the Positive Brain Health Now Cohort (mean age: 53 years), categorized as robust (30.2%), prefrail (47.0%), or frail (22.7%). Sedative use was classified using the Sedative Load Model, and frailty was assessed with a modified Fried Frailty Phenotype. Co-medication networks were constructed for robust, prefrail, and frail groups, with metrics such as Neighborhood Shift Scores (NESH) and ΔBetweenness used to evaluate network dynamics. Edge-level Observed-to-Expected ratios highlighted significant drug pairings and interaction risks. RESULTS: Frail individuals exhibited the most interconnected sedative network (graph density: 0.24; average degree: 7.31) followed by prefrail (graph density: 0.18; average degree: 6.67) and robust groups (graph density: 0.13; average degree: 4.61). Medications with high network influence included mirtazapine (robust-to-prefrail: NESH = 2.05; ΔBetweenness = 0.23), gabapentin (robust-to-frail: NESH = 2.46, ΔBetweenness = 0.10), and pregabalin (prefrail-to-frail: NESH = 2.55; ΔBetweenness = 0.71). High-risk sedative pairs in frail individuals included hydromorphone-clonazepam (Observed-to-Expected ratio: 3.07; interaction severity: D), amitriptyline-oxycodone (Observed-to-Expected ratio: 1.92; severity: D), and quetiapine-citalopram (Observed-to-Expected ratio: 2.12; severity: D). Prefrail individuals had intermediate-risk combinations, including clobazam-levetiracetam (Observed-to-Expected ratio: 81.5; severity: C), and gabapentin-hydroxyzine (Observed-to-Expected ratio: 3.58; severity: D). Robust individuals showed fewer and lower-risk patterns, such as amitriptyline-pregabalin (Observed-to-Expected ratio: 4.00; severity: C). Network differences reflect increasing polypharmacy and adverse interaction risks with advancing frailty. CONCLUSION: Sedative co-medication patterns vary meaningfully across frailty states in people with HIV. Frailty is associated with more complex networks and a greater likelihood of high-risk drug interactions. Medications influencing these patterns can help identify opportunities for safer prescribing. The prefrail stage may offer a timely window for interventions aimed at minimizing polypharmacy and improving safety in middle-aged and older adults with HIV.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".