Movement Disorders in Children and Adolescents Receiving Antipsychotic Pharmacotherapy: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe a cohort of young users of risperidone and quetiapine in the province of Manitoba (Canada) and assess the risk for movement disorders in the two treatments. METHODS: This was a population-based study conducted on all residents of the province of 19 years of age and younger who received prescriptions for risperidone or quetiapine between April 1, 1996, and March 31, 2011. Incident rates of antipsychotic use were reported. The risk for movement disorders in patients treated with quetiapine compared with those treated with risperidone was assessed by time-to-event analysis using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Between April 1, 1996, and March 31, 2011, 23,888 youth (age ≤19 years) were prescribed an antipsychotic agent. Among them, 8756 were identified as new incident users. After applying exclusion criteria, 2594 individuals comprised the cohort of users of risperidone and quetiapine. The use of quetiapine was associated with a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs) adverse events. The unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) for quetiapine versus risperidone were 0.83 (0.56-1.25) and 0.53 (0.34-0.83), respectively. CONCLUSION: EPS diagnoses have been detected in children treated with quetiapine; however, the risk of movement disorders appears to be higher with treatment with risperidone. Clinicians should always take into consideration the risk-benefit before treating children with antipsychotic medications and should be vigilant of the onset of drug-induced adverse events.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".