Polypharmacy in general practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy increases the risk of side effects and interactions. We quantified the prevalence of major polypharmacy (MPP) in a Danish county with 236,000 inhabitants, invited general practitioners (GPs) to participate in a quality improvement project and discussed the medication of 10-20 MPP patients selected by the participating GPs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective registry study of all prescriptions of subsidized drugs in the third quarter of 2005 for all inhabitants living in Roskilde County, Denmark. An audit was performed of the prescriptions of 220 MPP patients selected by the GPs based on a list of each MPP patient's medications. RESULTS: MPP patients constituted 2.1% of the county's population. GPs demonstrated a strong interest in auditing prescriptions. A large share of the patients selected by the GPs was treated with drugs which were no longer indicated, or with drugs with a doubtful indication. CONCLUSIONS: MPP compromises the GP's ability to manage medication of individual patients. Systematic audit of the total medication of patients should be introduced.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".