MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037456247 · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.3.540

Which treatment for whom for ADHD? Moderators of treatment response in the MTA.

2003· article· en· W2037456247 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityYork University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsModerationPsychologyClinical psychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderParent trainingDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using receiver operating characteristics, the authors examined outcome predictors (variables associated with outcome regardless of treatment) and moderators (variables identifying subgroups with differential treatment effectiveness) in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; MTA). Treatment response was determined using parent- and teacher-reported ADHD and oppositional defiant symptoms, with levels near or within the normal range indicating excellent response. Among 9 baseline child and family characteristics, none predicted but 3 moderated treatment response. In medication management and combined treatments, parental depressive symptoms and severity of child ADHD were associated with decreased rates of excellent response; when these 2 characteristics were present, below-average child IQ was an additional moderator. No predictors or moderators emerged for behavioral and community comparison treatments. The authors discuss conceptual and clinical implications of research on treatment moderators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it