Correlates of Methylphenidate Use in Canadian Children: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of methylphenidate (MPH) use among Canadian children aged 2 to 11 years, from 1994-1995 to 1998-1999 and to identify sociodemographic, child, and parent-family correlates are identified. METHODS: Cross-sectional data collections from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) for 1994-1995, 1996-1997, and 1998-1999 were used and samples weighted up to population levels (n=17,814 in 1994-1995, 13,575 in 1996-1997, and 18,980 in 1998-1999). Logistic regression identified correlates of parent-reported MPH use in each time period. RESULTS: MPH use by Canadian children increased from 1.33% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17% to 1.50%) in 1994-1995 to 1.60% (95% CI, 1.42% to 1.78%) in 1998-1999. Use among school children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 1.94% (95% CI, 1.68% to 2.20%) in 1994-1995 to 2.42% (95% CI, 2.14% to 2.71%) in 1998-1999. Use of MPH increased among girls, from 0.52% (95% CI, 0.32% to 0.67%) in 1994-1995 to 0.97% (95% CI, 0.77% to 1.17%) in 1998-1999. For a child with parent-reported hyperactivity, the odds ratios for using MPH were 6.30 (95% CI, 4.94 to 8.90) in 1994-1995 and 12.54 (95% CI, 9.74 to 16.16) in 1998-1999. Age 6 to 11 years, male sex, and absence of parental alcohol use were significant correlates of MPH use in all time periods. Parental smoking correlated with MPH use in 1994-1995 and in 1998-1999. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 2% of Canadian children used MPH between 1994 and 1999. Some increase in use occurred among school-aged children and girls. Parent-reported hyperactivity was the most important correlate of MPH 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".