Contribution of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Inhibitory Control to Assess the Neurobiological Aspects of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The applicability of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has not yet been investigated. This low-cost, non-invasive, and safe technique optimized to modulate the inhibitory response might be a useful treatment option for those affected by this condition. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this single center, parallel, randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial is to investigate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation over the prefrontal cortex on the modulation of inhibitory control in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. METHODS: A total of 60 individuals will be divided into 2 groups by block randomization to receive active or sham stimulation. Anodal stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex will be applied at 1 mA during a single 20-minute session. Before and after interventions, subjects will perform 2 go/no go tasks and the brain electrical activity will be recorded by electroencephalogram (EEG) with 32 channels, according to the 10-20 international EEG system. RESULTS: The trial began in May 2013 and we are currently performing the statistical analysis for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will provide preliminary results about the role of prefrontal cortex activation through tDCS on ADHD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01968512; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968512 (Archived by WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6YMSW2tkD).
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".