Stimulant use following the publicity of cardiovascular safety and the introduction of patient medication guides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore changes in stimulant utilization and pre-treatment electrocardiography (ECG) screening in response to cardiovascular (CV) safety concerns. METHODS: Two source populations were established from Florida Medicaid Fee-for-service beneficiaries between 2001 and 2008: approximately 44 571 newly diagnosed attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder patients and 33 000 new stimulant users. Time-series design and Joinpoint analysis were used to describe monthly trend changes in stimulant initiation, persistence, dosing, and pre-treatment ECG screening. RESULTS: Initial and maintenance daily dose declined 6 mg (95% confidence interval [CI] -14 to -1.9) methylphenidate (MPH) equivalent dose from a steady 27 mg after Canada withdrew Adderall XR in February 2005; the trend rebounded to a daily dose of 23 mg, after the remarketing of Adderall XR and a debate in the US over issuing a boxed warning on stimulant CV safety in early 2006. Monthly initiation increased 3.9% (CI -1.0 to 9.1) after the boxed warning debate to 54 per 100 patients per month (CI 44 to 68), but declined 2.4% (CI -3.6 to -1.2) after requirement of medication guides in February 2007. Monthly ECG screening increased 3.2% (CI 2.3 to 4.2) after Adderall XR withdrawal and further increased 13% (CI 4 to 23) after the American Heart Association recommended pre-treatment ECG screening to 40 per 100 patients per month (CI 17 to 48). CONCLUSIONS: The first signal of stimulant CV safety concerns was followed by varying responses depending on the outcome measure used, suggesting that patients and physicians responded at different times after the publicity of safety concerns. Clinical consequences of the changes are uncertain. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".