MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7141771542

Psychiatric Medications and QTc Prolongation in the Pediatric Population.

2025· article· en· W7141771542 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Wong, Sonia Franciosi, Shubhayan Sanatani

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQT intervalTorsades de pointesPharmacistLong QT syndromePrimary careMedical prescriptionDrugClinical pharmacology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various medications used to treat psychiatric conditions are associated with prolongation of the QTc interval, which can lead to Torsades de Pointes, a deadly arrhythmia. Despite evidence of QTc prolongation, clinicians increasingly use psychiatric drugs in the pediatric population. Guidelines for prescribing many of these medications in children do not currently exist. To safely prescribe QTc prolonging drugs, especially in children with preexisting cardiovascular conditions, psychiatric providers, primary care physicians and/or pediatricians should conduct a detailed personal and family medical history, medication record, physical examination, and lab work, if clinically indicated, to rule out potential risk factors. Pharmacist input should be sought, if available. If risk factors are present and pre-treatment assessments identify cardiac risk factors, an assessment by a cardiologist may be necessary. To enhance treatment safety and mitigate QTc prolongation risks associated with psychiatric drug use in children, a standardized approach for drug prescribing that takes patient risk factors into account is proposed.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→