P02.09. An open label pilot study of homeopathic treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participants age 6-16 with ADHD (confirmed by the study psychiatrist) of any subtype were invited to participate if they were on a stable medication dose for a minimum of six weeks. Participants with severe psychiatric co-morbidities were excluded. Participants received 10 homeopathic consultations from one of two experienced homeopaths over 9 months who prescribed single homeopathic remedies on an individualized basis from a list of 115 potential substances. Remedies, potencies, and dosing frequencies could be changed at any of the appointments. Outcomes, including Conners 3 Parent questionnaire, were measured at baseline and at each follow-up appointment. Thirty-six participants (including six females) were recruited over an 11-month period with a mean age of 9.5 (range 6-16). Two participants have withdrawn to date. Of the 15 participants who have completed 8 or more consultations, 11 (73%) have had at least a 25% reduction in their symptoms. Of those participants who have had a 25% reduction, the average time to reach that threshold was 2.6 months and they tried on average 2.2 remedies. Data collection for the majority of the participants will be complete by May 2012. Preliminary findings from this open-label pilot study indicate that proceeding with the design and conduct of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of homeopathic treatment of ADHD is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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".