Avantages et inconvénients des psychotropes chez un enfant ayant un TSA : perception des parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Près de la moitié des jeunes Québécois ayant un diagnostic du trouble du spectre de l’autisme (TSA) utilisent au moins un psychotrope (Sirois et al., 2013). Il existe toutefois peu de données sur l’efficacité de ces médicaments dans cette population. Aucune médication ne traite le TSA (INESSS, 2013). Le point de vue des parents relativement à l’usage et à l’efficacité des psychotropes chez leur enfant ayant un TSA n’a pas fait l’objet d’études. Il est pourtant essentiel de connaître ces éléments afin d’assurer un usage optimal de la médication chez cette population. L’objectif de la recherche est d’identifier les perceptions des parents d’un enfant ayant un diagnostic de TSA à l’égard de l’utilisation de psychotropes. Dans le cadre de cet article, nous présenterons les avantages et les inconvénients perçus à l’utilisation des médicaments psychotropes. Dans une théorie explicative de l’adoption d’un comportement telle que la théorie du comportement planifié (Ajzen, 1991), les avantages et les inconvénients constituent des croyances qui influencent l’attitude des personnes à adopter un comportement. Cette théorie a guidé la démarche de cette recherche.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".