MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151387251 · doi:10.1136/pmj.79.929.139

Psychopharmacological treatments in persons with dual diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and developmental disabilities

2003· review· en· W2151387251 on OpenAlexaff
Ruxandra Antochi, C Stavrakaki, Patricia Emery

Bibliographic record

VenuePostgraduate Medical Journal · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with developmental disabilities are at considerable risk for the development of comorbid psychiatric conditions. Psychopharmacological treatments may have a crucial role in a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach to the management of psychopathology in this population. Psychiatric illnesses that are particularly amenable include mood disorders, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHDs) and antidepressants, mood stabilisers, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, and stimulants should be considered, respectively. ADHD may also respond to alpha(2)-agonists. Psychotropic agents such as beta-antagonists can target aggressive, self injurious, and stereotypical behaviours and opioid antagonists may be helpful in treating self injurious behaviour and stereotypy. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, newer anticonvulsants, and atypical neuroleptics are preferred when treating psychiatric disorders among people with developmental disabilities. This paper will review the major studies of pharmacological treatment of mental illness in individuals with developmental disabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePostgraduate Medical JournalSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207