MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573940597 · doi:10.1002/pds.4164

<scp>ADHD</scp> medications and cardiovascular adverse events in children and adolescents: cross‐national comparison of risk communication in drug labeling

2017· article· en· W2573940597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Sieluk, Brittany N. Palasik, Susan dosReis, Peter Doshi

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectHealth professionalsConsistency (knowledge bases)Stroke (engine)Adverse drug eventMyocardial infarctionHealth carePharmacoepidemiologyDrugStimulantFamily medicinePsychiatryMedical prescriptionPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Regulators approve written medical information for healthcare professionals and consumers, but the consistency of these sources has not been studied. We investigated the consistency of information regarding four cardiovascular risks of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications approved in four countries. METHODS: Professional and consumer product labeling for five ADHD medications approved in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA were obtained in March/April 2016. Language describing the relationship between medication and elevated blood pressure and/or heart rate, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death was extracted verbatim and classified into one of four categories based on the described relationship between medication and adverse event: "confirmed," "unconfirmed," "mixed," and "not mentioned." We judged the consistency of messages delivered to healthcare professionals and consumers as either "consistent" or "inconsistent." RESULTS: We obtained 20 healthcare professional labels and 20 corresponding consumer labels for the five ADHD medications registered in all four countries. Not all professional and consumer labeling contained language regarding all four adverse events. Of the 80 theoretically evaluable drug-risk pairs, 38 (48%) were not evaluable because of absence of mention of the adverse event in the consumer label. For the remaining 42, the potential causal relationship was expressed consistently in professional and consumer labeling in 25 (60%) cases. The cardiovascular risk profile was not described consistently across all four countries for any of the five drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Product labeling provides healthcare professionals and consumers with inconsistent messages regarding the potential causal relationship between stimulant use and specific cardiovascular risks in children and adolescents. Copyright © 2017 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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.372 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug SafetySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207