Sensitivity of scales to evaluate change in symptomatology with psychostimulants in different ADHD subtypes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity of scales (Conners' Global Index Parent and Teacher form [CGI-P, CGI-T], Clinical Global Impression Scale [CGI], Continuous Performance Test [CPT], and Restricted Academic Situation Scale [RASS]) in evaluating improvement in symptomatology with methylphenidate in different Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) subtypes. METHOD: Four hundred and ninety children (309 with ADHD Combined/Hyperactive [ADHD-CH] and 181 with ADHD Inattentive subtype [ADHD-I]) participated in a two week double-blind placebo-controlled crossover methylphenidate trial. RESULTS: CGI-P showed small effect size for ADHD-I and medium effect size for the ADHD-CH subtype. CGI-T showed medium effect size for ADHD-I and large effect size for ADHD-CH subtype. CGI and RASS showed large effect size while CPT showed medium effect size for both subtypes. CONCLUSION: Acute behavioural assessments by clinicians (CGI, RASS) are better at detecting improvement with medication in all subtypes than parent or teacher reports (CGI-P, CGI-T). CGI-T is better than CGI-P for ADHD-I in detecting change in symptomatology as there is a greater demand for attention at school.
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 | 0.024 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".