The efficacy of neurofeedback in the management of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a behavioural disorder characterized by an inappropriate level of inattention with or without impulsivity or overactivity. The estimated prevalence of ADHD is 7% to 10% in boys and 3% in girls aged four to 11 years. The higher prevalence in boys is believed to be the result of a referral bias because boys with ADHD are more disruptive and aggressive, and, therefore, more likely to be referred to specialty clinics. ADHD is caused by a combination of biological - often genetically determined neurochemical disturbances - and environmental disadvantages that are associated with learning difficulties, behavioural problems and social rejection. The identification and treatment of children with ADHD are essential in preventing or at least minimizing the serious complications associated with this disorder. Stimulant medications are the most effective means of symptomatic control of ADHD symptoms, and the safety and efficacy of these medications is well established in the literature. Despite the known efficacy of stimulant medications, alternatives are often sought by parents of children with ADHD. A number of alternative and controversial treatments for ADHD are available, including dietary management, nutritional supplementation, vision therapy, hypnotherapy, guided imagery, relaxation training and electroencephalogram (EEG) neurofeedback. Published well controlled scientific studies either to support or refute the effectiveness of EEG neurofeedback for children with ADHD are not available. At the present time, EEG neurofeedback needs to be considered as an experimental treatment, the validity of which has not yet been determined.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".