Retrospective Review of Clozapine Use in Children and Adolescents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Literature describing use of clozapine by children and adolescents is limited. The primary study objective was to assess the patterns of clozapine use in an inpatient child and adolescent population. METHODS: A retrospective review of child and adolescent inpatients receiving clozapine at a Canadian children's hospital from January 2000 through December 2014 was conducted. Interdisciplinary comprehensive data collection was conducted by experienced clinicians. Baseline population characteristics and psychiatric illness risk factors were captured. Illness symptoms and severity were assessed retrospectively using validated measures including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales. Estimated clozapine dosing requirements for each patient to achieve a serum level associated with response was calculated. Clozapine-related adverse events were captured. RESULTS: Twenty-eight inpatients (64% female) receiving clozapine during the study period were identified. Mean age at clozapine initiation was 15.8 years. Twenty-three patients (82%) were taking clozapine at discharge, and of these, 22 patients (96%) experienced at least minimal improvement in BPRS and CGAS scores. Patients took a mean of 33.1 days from clozapine start to reach their maximum clozapine dosage, a mean maximum of 57% of their estimated clozapine dose requirement. Mean length of stay following clozapine initiation was 60.7 days. We observed a high rate of benign hematological adverse events, but no episodes of severe neutropenia. The majority of patients were of ethnicity associated with high risk for metabolic adverse events. CONCLUSION: Most hospitalized, treatment-refractory children requiring clozapine clinically improve despite experiencing high, but largely manageable, adverse event rates.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".