MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989294172 · doi:10.1177/108705470200600101

Inhibitory Control in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

2002· article· en· W1989294172 on OpenAlex
Patricia Murphy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsStop signalInhibitory controlAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychologyResponse inhibitionInhibitory postsynaptic potentialAudiologyAttention deficitDevelopmental psychologyLatency (audio)PsychiatryNeuroscienceCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have been found to be deficient in inhibitory control. The purpose of this study was to determine if adults with ADHD are also deficient in this domain. METHODS: The performance of 18 adults with ADHD and 18 normal controls was compared on the Stop Signal Paradigm, which is a test of inhibitory control. RESULTS: The adults with ADHD performed more poorly on the Stop Signal Paradigm than did the normal controls. The ADHD subjects exhibited a longer latency to respond to the stop signal than did the control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The individuals with ADHD tested in this study showed an inhibitory control deficit. The results suggest that a deficit in inhibitory control is central to 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it