Evidence of utilization behavior in children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether inappropriate/excessive motor activity seen in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) could be characterized as Utilization Behavior (UB). Given evidence that the neuropathology of ADHD may involve frontal-striatal systems, we investigated the possibility that children with ADHD may demonstrate "utilization behavior." Utilization Behavior (UB) is a neurobehavioral syndrome documented in individuals with damage or dysfunction in the frontal areas of the brain; patients exhibiting UB are often described as reaching out and utilizing objects in the environment in an automatic and inappropriate manner. The sample consisted of two group of children; children with ADHD (n = 32) and control children (n = 31). Children were assessed individually in a testing room where various objects, selected to elicit UB, were present. They completed cognitive tests and also were allowed to engage in an unsupervised activity. Testing sessions were videotaped and instances of physical activity (i.e., upper limb motor activity and utilization of objects) were counted by two raters. Results indicated high levels of object utilization in approximately one-half of the children with ADHD, whereas almost no such behavior was observed in controls. This behavior did not appear to be a result of generally heightened activity levels or due to instruction set, but differed according to object familiarity and object visibility. Levels of UB were statistically associated with the severity of hyperactivity, as reported by parents, of children with ADHD. This study suggests that inappropriate/excessive motor activity may, at least in part, be characterized as UB in some children with ADHD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".