MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213227327 · doi:10.9740/mhc.2021.11.320

Long-term use of antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics in pediatric patients with a focus on appropriate deprescribing

2021· article· en· W3213227327 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle L. Stutzman

Bibliographic record

VenueMental Health Clinician · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeprescribingMedicinePsychiatryPsychotropic AgentPsychotropic medicationMoodPsychotropic drugPsychologyIntensive care medicineMental healthDrugPolypharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is estimated that 8% to 12% of youth are prescribed psychotropic medications. Those in foster care, juvenile justice systems, residential treatment facilities, and with developmental or intellectual disabilities are more likely to be prescribed high-risk regimens. The use of psychotropic medications in this age group is often off-label and can be associated with significant risk, warranting critical evaluation of their role. Landmark trials, pediatric-specific guidelines, and state-driven initiatives play critical roles in supporting evidence-based use of psychotropic medications in children. Overall, there is a lack of literature describing the long-term use of psychotropic medications in youth-particularly with regard to neurobiological, physical, and social changes that occur throughout development. Deprescribing is an important practice in child and adolescent psychiatry, given concerns for over-prescribing, inappropriate polytherapy, and the importance of reevaluating the role of psychotropic medications as children develop.

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 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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental Health ClinicianSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207