Utilization of antipsychotic medications in the youth population of Manitoba: 1996-2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serious safety concerns have been raised recently about the use of second generation antipsychotics (SGAs), in young patients. In this population based study, utilization of antipsychotics use in the youth population of Manitoba between 1996 and 2011 was determined. Rates of adverse events (diabetes, hypertension, EPS) were compared among the users of SGAs. School enrolment and high school completion rates were evaluated for young users. Databases from the Population Health Research Data Repository, housed at the Manitoba Centre of Health Policy were accessed. Increased utilization (prevalence: 2.3 to 9 per 1,000 persons; incidence: 1.2 to 2.7 per 1,000 between 2001 and 2011) of SGAs was observed in the youth population of MB. The most common diagnosis recorded were Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (56.8%), Conduct Disorders (38%) and Mood Disorders (22.7%). Olanzapine therapy seemed to be associated with a higher risk of hypertension compared to risperidone users (HR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.20 – 5.29). Risperidone users seemed to be at higher risk of EPS than quetiapine users (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26 – 0.82). School enrolment of SGAs users appeared to be comparable to those reported for the general population. High school completion rates may be lower than those of the general population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".