Evidence-based guidelines for management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adolescents in transition to adult services and in adults: recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an established diagnosis in children, associated with a large body of evidence on the benefits of treatment. Adolescents with ADHD are now leaving children's services often with no readily identifiable adult service to support them, which presents problems as local pharmacy regulations often preclude the prescription of stimulant drugs by general practitioners (GPs). In addition, adults with ADHD symptoms are now starting to present to primary care and psychiatry services requesting assessment and treatment. For these reasons, the British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP) thought it timely to hold a consensus conference to review the body of evidence on childhood ADHD and the growing literature on ADHD in older age groups. Much of this initial guidance on managing ADHD in adolescents in transition and in adults is based on expert opinion derived from childhood evidence. We hope that, by the time these guidelines are updated, much evidence will be available to address the many directions for future research that are detailed here.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it