A retrospective chart review to assess potentially inappropriate prescriptions related to oral NSAID, anticoagulant, and antiplatelet use in two family medicine teaching clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) have been defined as the prescribing of medications where the risk of adverse outcomes outweighs the benefit to patients. Some medications pose a greater risk than others. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiplatelets, and anticoagulants are among the top offenders for preventable drug-related ER visits, hospitalizations and deaths. Methods: Data were collected through a retrospective electronic/paper chart review for all patients prescribed a target medication in two family medicine clinics in Winnipeg, Manitoba from June 2012 to June 2013. Results: The presence of at least one PIP was identified in 198 of 567 patients (35%). The most common PIP was the use of an oral NSAID with one or more gastrointestinal bleed risk factor without adequate gastro-protection. Conclusion: With over one-third of patients using NSAIDs, antiplatelets, and anticoagulants potentially inappropriately, a greater focus on improving prescribing practices with these higher-risk medications is warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".