Tool for longitudinal monitoring of medicine‐related symptoms in older people: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Older adults are vulnerable to medicine‐related harm due to age‐related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Aim The aim of this study was to adapt and test a tool for longitudinal monitoring of medicine‐related symptoms in older adults. Method The PHArmacotherapeutical Symptom Evaluation‐20 tool was adapted from a four‐point to an 11‐point scale (PHASE‐20–Australian version) and administered to residents at the initial interview and again at the 4‐week follow up in an aged‐care facility, located in South Australia, Australia. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) tool was used as a comparator to evaluate how the adapted tool tracks symptoms overtime. Symptoms reported using the PHASE‐20–Australian version were compared with adverse effects of medicines in use listed in the Australian product information. The test–retest reliability of the adapted tool was also evaluated. Ethical approval was granted by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: HREC205098) and the study conforms to the Australian National statement on ethical conduct in human research . Informed consent was obtained from all participants via the distribution of project information sheets and completion of written consent forms. Results Nineteen residents (mean age ± standard deviation [84.4 ± 8.0 years]) completed the initial assessment and 17 completed the follow up. Seventy‐two percent of the symptoms reported using the PHASE‐20–Australian version matched the common or very common adverse effects listed in the Australian product information for the medicines used by the residents. The PHASE‐20–Australian version showed a strong positive correlation with ESAS scores ( rho = 0.744, p < 0.001). Changes in PHASE‐20–Australian version scores correlated moderately to strongly with changes in ESAS scores ( rho = 0.658, p < 0.004). The adapted tool had acceptable test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.738). Conclusion The score of PHASES‐20–Australian version correlated well with a tool validated for longitudinal monitoring of symptoms and demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability. Further studies are needed to confirm its validity for longitudinal monitoring of medicine‐related symptoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".