MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder to medical stimulant use to the diversion of prescribed stimulants to non‐medical stimulant use: connecting the dots

2007· article· en· W1993334327 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie UniversityCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMethylphenidateMedical prescriptionStimulantAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderAmphetaminePsychiatryMedicinePopulationAttention deficitAttention deficit disorderPharmacologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To describe the connections among the likelihood of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), medical and non-medical methylphenidate and amphetamine use and the diversion of prescribed methylphenidate in the general adolescent population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional self-reported anonymous data from the 2002 Student Drug Use Survey in the Atlantic Provinces. SETTING: The Atlantic provinces of Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12,990 students participated. MEASUREMENTS: The outcomes were a positive ADHD screening test, medical and non-medical use of methylphenidate, medical and non-medical use of amphetamine and the giving and selling of methylphenidate medication by students with a prescription. The Ontario Child Health Study Hyperactivity Scale was used to screen for ADHD. FINDINGS: The prevalence of a positive ADHD screening test was 6% with no significant gender difference. The prevalence of medical and non-medical methylphenidate use and medical and non-medical amphetamine use was 2.0%, 6.6%, 1.2% and 8.7%, respectively. A positive ADHD screening test was independently predictive of these four patterns of use. About 26% of students with prescribed methylphenidate gave or sold some of their medication. Students in a class where at least one student had given or sold some of their prescribed pills had a 1.52-fold increased risk of non-medical methylphenidate use than their counterparts in classes where no giving or selling had taken place. CONCLUSIONS: Connections were demonstrated at the population level between ADHD, medical methylphenidate use, the diversion of prescribed methylphenidate and the non-medical use of methylphenidate. The appropriate assessment and management of ADHD are essential to minimize both the risk of diversion and of substance use associated with unrecognized or untreated ADHD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it