Consortium for the lifespan examination of ADHD registry (Clear): An update on methodology and recruitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction ADHD is often unrecognised and untreated, particularly in Europe. There is a need for improved understanding of ADHD in adults and its impact on patients across the lifespan. Registries allow for multiple real-world comparisons based on assessment of patients that are typically excluded from clinical studies. Data describing the cost, burden and consequences of ADHD are essential to inform clinicians, regulatory agencies, payers and patients about the condition. Objectives To address the gaps in our current understanding of the care and cost of treating adult patients with ADHD by documenting real-life experiences. Methods A prospective, longitudinal, observational study of adults > 18 years with ADHD, designed to follow 2500 patients in the USA, UK, Germany, The Netherlands and Canada for a minimum of 5 years. In year one, patients will be asked questions regarding: the impact of childhood diagnosis and/or treatment on adult ADHD, long- and short-term treatment patterns and their consequences, differences between ADHD treatments, the relationship between disease severity and compliance with treatment, increased tendency to risk behaviour/substance abuse, costs. In subsequent years, topics may be expanded to include the transition into adulthood and healthcare access for young adults. Results Ten sites are currently recruiting, with 45 patients enrolled up to 7 October 2010. Challenges associated with initiating a global registry in North America and Europe will be discussed. Conclusion Data generated from CLEAR will help improve the global understanding of the longitudinal impact of ADHD. Supported by Shire Development, Inc.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".