MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011497301 · doi:10.1177/0883073808323523

Cardiovascular and Neurological Adverse Events Associated With Antidepressant Treatment in Children and Adolescents

2009· article· en· W2011497301 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanette M. Jerrell, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineCohortHeadachesMoodOrthostatic vital signsAntidepressantAdverse effectPediatricsPsychiatryAnesthesiaInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A retrospective cohort design of Medicaid medical and pharmacy claims for 1996 through 2005 was employed for 14,171 children and adolescents prescribed an antidepressant medication and a random sample of 4500 children not treated with any class of psychotropic medication to compare the prevalence rates of cardiovascular and neurological adverse events. The treated cohort evinced a higher prevalence of cardiovascular events, orthostatic hypotension, seizures, insomnia, and headaches. In the treated cohort, patients were at a significantly higher risk for incident cardiovascular events when exposed to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and weight-inducing antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics. Incident orthostatic hypotension was associated with weight-inducing antidepressants and mood stabilizers. Incident seizures and extrapyramidal symptoms were unrelated to antidepressant or co-prescribed psychotropic medications, but both were significantly associated with comorbid central nervous system, organic brain/mental retardation, or preexisting cardiovascular or cerebrovascular conditions. Headaches and dizziness were significantly related to taking mood stabilizers.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207