Is Cannabis Use Associated With the Worst Inpatient Outcomes in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Adolescents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the impact of cannabis use disorder (CUD) on the inpatient outcomes of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescents Background Previous studies have evaluated the impact of CUD on the health-related quality of life in ADHD patients. Methods We used the nationwide inpatient sample (NIS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) from years 2010--2014. We identified ADHD and cannabis use (CU) as the primary and the other diagnosis, respectively, using validated International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, and Clinical Modification (ICD-9--CM) codes. We used the binomial logistic regression model to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Results We analyzed a total of 11,232 ADHD adolescent hospital admissions from years 2010-2014; of these, 1.79% had CUD. The mean age of adolescents was 14.1 years (SD = 1.79). The prevalence of CUD was highest in ADHD adolescents of 15-18 years (73%) and common in the white race (71%). A higher proportion of ADHD with CUD was transferred to acute care hospitals and skilled/other nursing facilities (5.4% and 7.4% vs. 1.1% and 2.6%, respectively, p-value < 0.001). CUD increases the risk of inpatient charges > $12,247 (median) by 0.6 times (aOR = 1.835; p-value = 0.002) and increases the risk of inpatient stay > 5 days (median) by 0.7 times (aOR = 2.099; p-value < 0.001). The utilization of psychotropic medications was reduced by 0.8 times in ADHD with CUD adolescents by 0.8 times (aOR = 0.448; p-value = 0.017), and the implication of behavioral therapy in the management of ADHD with CUD adolescents was reduced by 0.9 times (aOR = 0.412; p-value = 0.048). Also, there is a 2.8 times higher risk of comorbid alcohol abuse in ADHD with CUD adolescents (aOR = 17.141; p-value < 0.001). Conclusion The increased risk of substance use is a long-term implication of ADHD in adolescents. It has been determined that comorbid CUD in patients with ADHD not only increases the risk of acute inpatient care but also prolongs the inpatient stay, thus increasing the healthcare cost. Surprisingly, comorbid CUD decreases the utilization of psychotropic medications and behavioral therapy in ADHD. Another major issue is the higher risk of comorbid alcohol abuse in ADHD with CUD adolescents. Further exploration with randomized controlled studies would be required to support and highlight the growing issue of cannabis use among adolescents with ADHD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".