Effectiveness of Methylphenidate in the 10-Month Continuation Phase of the Preschoolers with ADHD Treatment Study (PATS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine immediate-release methylphenidate effectiveness during the 10-month open-label continuation phase of the Preschoolers with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Treatment Study (PATS). METHODS: One hundred and forty preschoolers with ADHD, who had improved with acute immediate-release methylphenidate (IR-MPH) treatment, entered a 10-month, open-label medication maintenance at six sites. Assessments included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), CGI-Improvement (CGI-I), Children's Global Assessment Scale (C-GAS), Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Questionnaire (SNAP), Scale Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD-Symptoms and Normal Behaviors (SWAN), Social Competence Scale, Social Skills Rating System (SSRS), and Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF). RESULTS: For the 95 children who completed the 10-month treatment, improvement occurred on the CGI-S (p = 0.02), CGI-I (p < 0.01), C-GAS (p = 0.001), and SSRS (p = 0.01). SNAP and SWAN scores remained stable. Forty five children discontinued: 7 for adverse effects, 7 for behavior worsening, 7 for switching to long-acting stimulants, 3 for inadequate benefit, and 21 for other reasons. The mean MPH dose increased from 14.04 mg/day +/- SD 7.57 (0.71 +/- 0.38 mg/kg per day) at month 1 to 19.98 mg/day +/- 9.56 (0.92 +/- 0.40 mg/kg per day) at month 10. CONCLUSIONS: With careful monitoring and gradual medication dose increase, most preschoolers with ADHD maintained improvement during long-term IR-MPH treatment. There was substantial variability in effective and tolerated dosing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".