Adverse events in children and adolescents treated with antipsychotic medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the odds of developing adverse events associated with antipsychotic treatment among children and adolescents. METHOD: A retrospective cohort design evaluating medical and pharmacy claims from one state Medicaid program was used to compare incidence rates for six categories of adverse events of antipsychotic use in 4140 children and adolescents newly prescribed one of six atypical or two conventional antipsychotic medications, January, 1998 to December, 2005 with prevalence rates of these conditions in a random sample of 4500 children not treated with psychotropic medications. RESULTS: The odds of developing obesity/excessive weight gain, Type II diabetes and dyslipidemia, digestive/urogenital problems, and neurological/sensory symptoms were higher for females and those prescribed multiple antipsychotic medications. The odds of developing cardiovascular conditions were higher for those prescribed multiple antipsychotic medications and haloperidol. The odds of developing somatic conditions were higher for females, children 12 and under, and those prescribed multiple antipsychotics. Those with lengthy exposure to antipsychotics were at higher risk of developing incident neurological/sensory symptoms. Those treated with concomitant antipsychotic agents were at higher risk of developing somatic problems, and digestive/urogenital conditions. CONCLUSION: Pediatric exposure to antipsychotic polypharmacotherapy confers a higher risk of developing adverse events than monotherapy, especially for females.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".