MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090073903 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000674

Study of Natural products Adverse Reactions (SONAR) in children seen in mental health clinics: a cross-sectional study

2020· article· en· W3090073903 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Sparks, Liliane Zorzela, Candace Necyk, Baljit Khamba, Liana Urichuk, Joanne Barnes, Sunita Vohra

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Paediatrics Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMedical prescriptionMedicineAdverse effectMental healthCross-sectional studyPopulationPsychiatryPediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Paediatric mental health patients frequently use natural health products (NHP) in addition to prescription medications, but very little is known about adverse events and possible NHP-drug interactions. OBJECTIVE: To determine: (1) the prevalence of paediatric mental health patients taking prescription medications only, NHP only, both NHP and prescription medications concurrently or neither; (2) which prescription medications and NHP are most commonly used in paediatric mental health populations and (3) adverse events experienced in the last 30 days (serious and non-serious). DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveillance study. SETTING: Paediatric mental health clinics. POPULATION/INTERVENTION: On their first clinic visit, paediatric mental health patients were provided with a form inquiring about prescription drug use, NHP use and any undesirable event experienced in the last month. RESULTS: Of the 536 patients included in this study, 23% (n=120) reported taking only prescription medication(s), 21% (n=109) reported only NHP use, 21% (n=112) reported using both NHP and prescription drugs concurrently, and 36% (n=191) reported using neither. Overall, there were 23 adverse events reported; this represents 6.3%, 2.8%, 10.8% and 0.6% of each population, respectively. The majority of patients who experienced an adverse event reported taking more than one NHP or prescription drug. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the paediatric mental health patients in this study were taking NHPs alone or in addition to prescription medications. Active surveillance identified multiple adverse events associated with NHP and prescription drug use; none were serious. Healthcare professionals were encouraged to initiate conversations regarding NHP use.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Paediatrics OpenSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207