Second-generation antipsychotics and metabolic side-effects: Canadian population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) has increased in recent years; however, their use and effect on metabolic outcomes has been poorly characterised in population-level studies.AimsThis study aimed to determine the associations between SGA use and metabolic indicators in a general population. METHOD: We used data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey, a cross-sectional survey of Canadian households. Participants were Canadians aged 3-79 years, living in one of the ten provinces. Several metabolic indicators were examined, including weight, body mass index, waist circumference, hypertension, diabetes and two definitions of metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: The proportion of Canadians taking an SGA tripled over the study period. SGA use was significantly associated with hypertension (odds ratio 1.94, 95% CI 1.07-3.55) and abdominal obesity in adults, as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III (odds ratio 2.62, 95% CI 1.45-4.71). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of metabolic dysfunction with SGAs is seen in the Canadian population, along with a rapid increase in prevalence of use since 2007.Declaration of interestNone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".