Once-Daily Multilayer-Release Methylphenidate in a Double-Blind, Crossover Comparison to Immediate-Release Methylphenidate in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of a novel long-duration multilayer-release (MLR) methylphenidate (MPH) formulation and immediate-release (IR) MPH in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of once-daily MLR and twice-daily IR-MPH in home and school settings in children with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of ADHD. Patients completed a 1-week baseline followed by two active medication titration phases. Each phase of treatment was 1-4 weeks of titration with an additional stable dose week. The final dose was based on efficacy and adverse events for each patient. Efficacy measures included Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) and Conners' Parent and Teacher Rating Scales (CPRS and CTRS). The Clinical Assessment of Side Effects (CASE) scale assessed frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 90 enrolled patients, aged 6.4-17.5 years, 79 (88%) completed the study. Stable daily doses were 32.0 and 32.5 mg for MLR and IR-MPH, respectively. All efficacy parameters were significantly improved from baseline. A total of 73.2% and 81.0% of patients on MLR and IR-MPH were rated as "much" or "very much improved" on the CGI. A total of 77.4% and 81.1% of patients were normalized on the CPRS-R and 78.9 and 90.4% of patients were normalized on the CTRS-R for MLR and IR-MPH, respectively. The mean CASE score was not different from baseline for either treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".