Stimulant Toxicity in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the signs/symptoms of different stimulant toxicities in children to determine differences among them. DESIGN: Observational, retrospective, single-center case-series. SETTING: The only referral hospital for pediatric poisoned patients in Tehran, Iran, covering 12.5 million permanent and 6.5 million temporary residents. PATIENTS: All children between 2007 and 2012 were evaluated. Their clinical findings, laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and outcome were evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 147 patients were enrolled (115, 24, three, and five with methamphetamine, methylphenidate, ecstasy, and unknown stimulant toxicities, respectively). Median (interquartile range) age of the methamphetamine- intoxicated children (16 mo [22-42 mo]) was significantly less than those with methylphenidate toxicity (66 mo [33-105 mo]). Almost 79% of the patients had ingested the stimulant, whereas 9% had passively been exposed to the methamphetamine smoke. The frequency of stimulant toxicity had significantly increased during the 5-year period of the study. Restlessness, mydriasis, stereotypic movements, and talkativeness were the most common signs and symptoms. Whereas bruxism only seen in 66.7% (95% CI, 21-94%) of ecstasy users, the prevalence of restlessness, sweating, and tremor was also more in this group of children. On the other hand, mydriasis and stereotypic movements were more common in crystal-meth patients by 76.5% (95% CI, 68-83%) and 53% (95% CI, 44-62%), respectively. A comparison between different routes of crystal-meth intoxication showed that flushing was more common in those who had passively/actively smoked/inhaled methamphetamine (odds ratio, 6.3 [95% CI, 1.5-26]). Palpitation was more seen in methylphenidate toxicity by 12.5% (95% CI, 4-31%). Restlessness was more detected in toddlers, whereas talkativeness and ataxia were more common in older children. Nineteen children (21%) had prolonged QTc according to normal values in different ages. None of them died. CONCLUSIONS: More studies are warranted to evaluate the frequency and outcome of this poisoning in children. Educational preventive programs are also recommended.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".