Utilisation de stimulants du système nerveux central chez les élèves du primaire suivis à l’école pour des troubles du comportement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Elementary school-aged children referred to school-based mental health services for conduct problems are commonly also prescribed central nervous system stimulants (CNSS), since many also suffer from comorbid ADHD. Nevertheless, there exists little information in the extant literature to determine to what degree the prescription of CNSS is associated with the presence of ADHD in these students or if other characteristics contribute to increasing the likelihood of CNSS use.Methods The current study was carried out on a sample of 341 students receiving school-based mental health services for conduct problems (27.8% girls, mean age of 9.9 years). ADHD and conduct problem symptomatology was assessed using a structured diagnostic instrument administered to parents and teachers.Results Results show that 39.9% of students were medicated using CNSS and that, among those who do not present ADHD symptomatology, approximately a third used CNSS. Age (6-8 years), socio-economic status (medium or high), placement in a special class for children with conduct problems, and symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity and oppositional defiant disorder all contributed unique variance in the prediction of utilisation of CNSS in this sample.Conclusion These results suggest that there may be several characteristics other than the presence of ADHD that can contribute to the medical decision to treat child problems with CNSS. These findings also underscore the importance of more rigorous assessment of ADHD in these children as well as longitudinal follow-up studies to determine the long-term effects of CNSS on their educational performance and eventual educational attainment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".