An evaluation of medication appropriateness and frailty among residents of aged care homes in Malaysia: A cross-sectional study

Aging is significantly associated with the development of comorbid chronic conditions. These conditions indicate the use of multiple medications, and are often warranted by clinical guidelines. The aim of the present study was to evaluate medication appropriateness and frailty among Malaysian aged care home residents with chronic disease. The participants were 202 elderly (≥65 years) individuals, a cross-sectional sample from 17 aged care homes. After ethics approval, each participant was interviewed to collect data on sociodemographics, frailty status (Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI]), medication appropriateness (Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI), the 2015 Beers’ criteria (Potentially Inappropriate Medication [PIM]), and 2014 STOPP criteria (Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing [PIP]). The findings show that 81% (n = 164) and 42% (n = 85) were taking medications for cardiovascular and central nervous system-related conditions, respectively, and 34% were using medications for diabetes (n = 69). Each participant had a mean of 2.9 ± 1.5 chronic diseases, with an average GFI score of 6.4 ± 3.6. More than three-quarters of the participants (76%) were frail and polypharmacy was a factor in nearly half (48%); 41% and 36% were prescribed at least one PIP and PIM, respectively, whereas the average MAI score was 0.6 (range: 0–6). The number of medications used per participant correlated significantly and positively (0.21, P = .002) with GFI score. These findings reinforce the need for participants of aged care homes to receive periodic medication review aimed at minimizing morbidity associated with inappropriate pharmacotherapy

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe