MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011646468

Monitoring Psychotropic Medication Influence on Disruptive Behaviour in Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

2024· other· en· W7011646468 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and cultural studies analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychotropic medicationIntellectual disabilityFunction (biology)Behaviour changeOddsDevelopmental disorderPsychotropic AgentPsychotropic drugCognition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demographic research suggests that up to 50% of persons with intellectual and developmental
\ndisabilities engage in disruptive behaviour (Sheehan et al., 2015). Psychopharmacological
\ninterventions are an oft applied treatment approach. Unfortunately, efficacy research on this topic
\nis relatively limited, especially applied behavioural pharmacology research aimed at monitoring
\nand evaluating the behavioural effects of psychotropic medication in this clinical population
\n(Khokhar et al., 2023). Behaviour analysts often conduct a functional analysis to uncover
\nbehaviour function as this assessment approach permits the systematic examination of the
\nrelationship between disruptive behaviour and environmental events. Theory around how
\npsychotropic medications may be affecting behaviour suggests that functional analyses may
\nfacilitate revealing drug-behaviour interactions. Thus, the proposed study explored the
\nbehavioural effects of clinically-indicated psychotropic medication changes in 10 adults with
\nintellectual and developmental disabilities who engaged in disruptive behaviour and were
\nprescribed psychotropic medication. Repeat functional analyses were conducted across regular
\nand PRN phases to monitor changes in behaviour function and rate. Evidently, 47.82% of the
\nregular medication phase comparisons were associated with function stability, while 36.36% of
\nthe PRN phase comparisons were associated with function stability. An odds ratio coefficient of
\n0.62 (95% CI: 0.14-2.73) indicated function changes across PRN medication phases were more
\nlikely. Effect sizes were generated to examine the magnitude of change in disruptive behaviour.
\nMean absolute effect size results for the PRN and regular medication phases (0.32 and 0.67,
\nrespectively) suggest there may be a noteworthy difference across the two conditions. Clinical
\nimplications, study strengths and limitations are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)Same topicLegal and cultural studies analysisFrench-language works237,207