FEATurE ArTIClE Combination and Switching of Stimulants in Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the one-year period prevalence of stimulant combination therapy and switching in children/ adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Quebec, Canada. Method: Patients aged 6-17 years, with at least two ADHD diagnosis codes documented in different visits and at least 30 days ’ supply of a stimulant during their most recent one-year observation period were selected from the Regie de l’assurance maladie du Quebec database (03/2007–02/2012). Combination therapy was defined as at least 30 consecutive days of concomitant use of multiple stimulants with different active moieties, or use of a stimulant and another psychotropic medication. Therapy switching was defined as a prescription claim for a new psychotropic medication less than 30 days before or after the end of supply of a stimulant. The one-year period prevalence of therapy combination and switching was calculated. Results: The one-year period prevalence of combination therapy and switching among 9,431 children and adolescents with ADHD treated with stimulants was 19.8 % and 18.7%, respectively. The most frequent combination categories were atypical antipsychotics (AAP: 10.8%), atomoxetine (ATX: 5.5%) and clonidine (5.3%). The most frequent switched-to categories were other
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".