Factors Affecting Polypharmacy in Patients with Dementia and Agitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Polypharmacy is common in elderly with dementia and has been linked to negative outcomes. Underlying factors for polypharmacy in dementia with agitation remain unclear. Objective: To investigate factors related to psychotropic and general polypharmacy in patients with dementia and agitation. Method: We used data from the Standardizing Care for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Quality of Life in Dementia (StaN) study, a randomized controlled trial (NCT03672201) across long-term care and inpatient sites in Canada. Agitation was assessed using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). Medical burden was evaluated using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G). Results: We included 183 participants. The number of psychotropic medications was positively associated with CMAI after controlling for age, sex, and number of psychiatric disorders. In contrast, general polypharmacy was associated with CIRS-G (and not with CMAI) Conclusion: In patients with dementia and agitation, psychotropic polypharmacy seems to be associated with agitation, while general polypharmacy with medical burden.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".