Impact of Antipsychotic Guidelines on Laboratory Monitoring in Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The Canadian Alliance for Monitoring Effectiveness and Safety of Antipsychotics in Children (CAMESA) guidelines provide monitoring recommendations for children who are treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the CAMESA guidelines on SGA monitoring in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Methods: A retrospective chart review compared laboratory monitoring in children treated with SGAs who were referred to a tertiary psychopharmacology clinic before (2008–2011) and after (2013–2016) CAMESA publication. Chi-squared tests were used to detect changes in SGA use and monitoring between the two time periods. Results: A total of 345 charts were reviewed ( n = 136 pre-CAMESA, n = 209 post-CAMESA). The proportion of children taking an SGA increased significantly (35% vs. 49%; p = 0.02) as did the duration of SGA treatment before tertiary assessment (18.6 months vs. 27.2 months; p = 0.03). SGA monitoring data were missing in 40% of charts pre-CAMESA and in 31% of charts post-CAMESA. The proportion of patients with any available laboratory monitoring did not change between the time periods (35% pre-CAMESA vs. 39% post-CAMESA; p = 0.56). Similarly, the proportion of patients with full laboratory monitoring was not significantly different between time periods (15% pre-CAMESA vs. 25% post-CAMESA; p = 0.23). Conclusions: SGA monitoring rates did not significantly improve after CAMESA guideline publication. To maximize benefit and mitigate risks of these medications, there is a need to identify barriers to SGA monitoring.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".