ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024
A model for identifying potentially inappropriate medication used in older people with dementia: a machine learning study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Medication Management for Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2026Review
- Exploring the association of adverse drug reactions with medication adherence and quality of life among hypertensive patients: a cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Association of polypharmacy with clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in older adults with cardiometabolic diseases: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a machine-learning model for the risk of potentially inappropriate medications in elderly stroke patients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical pharmacy-A systematic review of current scenario and future perspectives.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults with dementia often face the risk of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use. The quality of PIM evaluation is hindered by researchers' unfamiliarity with evaluation criteria for inappropriate drug use. While traditional machine learning algorithms can enhance evaluation quality, they struggle with the multilabel nature of prescription data.
aimThis study aimed to combine six machine learning algorithms and three multilabel classification models to identify correlations in prescription information and develop an optimal model to identify PIMs in older adults with dementia.
methodThis study was conducted from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. We used cluster sampling to obtain prescription data from patients 65 years and older with dementia. We assessed PIMs using the 2019 Beers criteria, the most authoritative and widely recognized standard for PIM detection. Our modeling process used three problem transformation methods (binary relevance, label powerset, and classifier chain) and six classification algorithms.
resultsWe identified 18,338 older dementia patients and 36 PIMs types. The classifier chain + categorical boosting (CatBoost) model demonstrated superior performance, with the highest accuracy (97.93%), precision (95.39%), recall (94.07%), F1 score (95.69%), and subset accuracy values (97.41%), along with the lowest Hamming loss value (0.0011) and an acceptable duration of the operation (371s).
conclusionThis research introduces a pioneering CC + CatBoost warning model for PIMs in older dementia patients, utilizing machine-learning techniques. This model enables a quick and precise identification of PIMs, simplifying the manual evaluation process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.