Individual Change in Methylphenidate Use in a National Sample of Children Aged 2 to 11 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine methylphenidate use in children aged 2 to 13 years. To provide age- and sex-specific estimates of methylphenidate initiation and cessation during a 2-year period. METHOD: Data from 2 cycles of a Canadian household survey yielded a sample of over 10 000 children aged 2 to 11 years at Cycle 1 who continued to participate at Cycle 2. We used logit modelling to estimate Cycle 2 methylphenidate use, methylphenidate use over a 2-year period, and methylphenidate initiation and cessation from Cycles 1 to 2. RESULTS: In 1996 and 1997, methylphenidate use ranged from 0.32% to 6.31% among children aged 4 to 13 years. School-aged boys were more likely than girls to use methylphenidate. Odds were greater for boys aged 6 to 7 years than for boys aged 4 to 5 years; they were also greater for boys aged 10 to 11 years than for boys aged 12 to 13 years. Almost 1% of children used methylphenidate at both data cycles. Odds of Cycle 2 methylphenidate use were 135 times greater for children using methylphenidate at Cycle 1, compared with nonusers. Methylphenidate initiation ranged from 0.20% to 3.34%, and school-aged boys had higher initiation rates than girls. Cessation rates ranged from 18% to78%, and there were no statistically significant differences by age and sex. CONCLUSIONS: Methylphenidate prevalence findings are consistent with past studies. We found an age-by-sex interaction on methylphenidate use. We also found both continuity and discontinuity in methylphenidate 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".