Psychotropic Medication Use Among Medicaid-Enrolled Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide national estimates of psychotropic medication use among Medicaid-enrolled children with autism spectrum disorders and to examine child and health system characteristics associated with psychotropic medication use. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used Medicaid claims for calendar year 2001 from all 50 states and Washington, DC, to examine 60,641 children with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Logistic regression with random effects was used to examine the child, county, and state factors associated with psychotropic medication use. RESULTS: Of the sample, 56% used at least 1 psychotropic medication, 20% of whom were prescribed > or = 3 medications concurrently. Use was common even in children aged 0 to 2 years (18%) and 3 to 5 years (32%). Neuroleptic drugs were the most common psychotropic class (31%), followed by antidepressants (25%) and stimulants (22%). In adjusted analyses, male, older, and white children; those who were in foster care or in the Medicaid disability category; those who received additional psychiatric diagnoses; and those who used more autism spectrum disorder services were more likely to have used psychotropic drugs. Children who had a diagnosis of autistic disorder or who lived in counties with a lower percentage of white residents or greater urban density were less likely to use such medications. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic medication use is common among even very young children with autism spectrum disorders. Factors unrelated to clinical presentation seem highly associated with prescribing practices. Given the limited evidence base, there is an urgent need to assess the risks, benefits, and costs of medication use and understand the local and national policies that affect medication use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".