Executive functioning in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Combined type with and without a stimulant medication history.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral and neuropsychological functioning in unmedicated children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who have a history of medication treatment (Rx) versus those who are treatment naïve (TN) has, to our knowledge, not been previously studied. Ninety-four children in four groups (ADHD/Rx, ADHD/TN, learning disabilities [LD], and controls) were evaluated, while unmedicated, on measures of achievement, neuropsychological functioning, and behavior. The ADHD/Rx group performed significantly better than the TN group on writing, Stroop interference, and measures of attention, and performed as well as the control group on executive functioning, verbal working memory, and academics. Behaviorally, the ADHD groups showed more difficulty with mood and externalizing behaviors compared with the LD and control groups, with the ADHD/TN performing the most poorly. Findings suggest that the ADHD/Rx group shows better executive and academic functioning even when unmedicated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".