MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408497566 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.12.25323683

A precision health approach to medication management in neurodevelopmental conditions: a model development and validation study using four international cohorts

2025· preprint· en· W4408497566 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marlee M. Vandewouw, Kamran Niroomand, Harshit Bokadia, Sophia M. Lenz, Jesiqua Rapley, Alfredo Arias, Jennifer Crosbie, Elisabetta Trinari, Elizabeth Kelley, Rob Nicolson, Russell Schachar, Paul Arnold, Alana Iaboni, Jason P. Lerch, Melanie Penner, Danielle Baribeau, Evdokia Anagnostou, Azadeh Kushki

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChild Mind InstituteGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Psychotropic medications are commonly prescribed to children with neurodevelopmental conditions, but responses vary widely, prescribing is largely off-label, and the expertise required is concentrated in specialized programs. We developed artificial intelligence models to predict prescribing patterns of stimulants, anti-depressants, and anti-psychotics. Feasibility was established in research cohorts by predicting cross-sectional medication use from the Child Behaviour Checklist, with training and internal testing in the Province of Ontario Neurodevelopmental network ( N =598) and external testing in the Healthy Brain Network ( N =1,764) and Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development ( N =2,396) studies. Clinical evaluation used electronic medical records (EMRs) from the Psychopharmacology Program ( N =312) at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital to predict the medication class prescribed at a follow-up visit (∼3 months later). In all cohorts, the modelled outcome was the clinician’s prescribing decision, which reflects clinician judgement, family preference, tolerability, and access to care in addition to expected effectiveness, and does not directly measure treatment response or clinical benefit. In the research cohorts, internal testing achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (median [IQR]) of 0.75 [0.73,0.80] for stimulants, 0.83 [0.78,0.87] for anti-depressants, and 0.79 [0.72,0.86] for anti-psychotics, and external testing confirmed generalizability. In the EMR cohort, values were 0.84 [0.81,0.88] for stimulants, 0.82 [0.77,0.87] for anti-depressants, and 0.87 [0.83,0.91] for anti-psychotics. Findings demonstrate that AI can accurately learn expert prescribing patterns and predict medication prescribing decisions, supporting the potential of data-driven tools to guide personalized medication management for neurodevelopmental conditions.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.417
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.039 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→