MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047201450 · doi:10.1177/1087054707311213

Anxiety, Methylphenidate Response, and Working Memory in Children With ADHD

2007· article· en· W2047201450 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Claude Bedard, Rosemary Tannock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylphenidatePsychologyAnxietyWorking memoryAudiologyCrossover studyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderVerbal learningPlaceboClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate (MPH) on components of working memory (WM) in children with ADHD and determine whether MPH produces differential effects on WM in children with comorbid anxiety (ANX). METHOD: Participants were a clinical sample of 130 children with ADHD, aged 6 to 12 years old (32% comorbid ANX). Each child participated in an acute randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with single challenges of three MPH doses. Four WM measures were used that varied in processing demands (storage versus manipulation of information) and modality (auditory-verbal; visual-spatial). RESULTS: MPH improved auditory-verbal manipulation but only in the non-ANX children with ADHD. It had no effect on auditory-verbal storage of information. Also, MPH improved the ability to manipulate visual-spatial information in both ADHD groups, but beneficial effects on visual-spatial storage were evident only in children without comorbid ANX. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide insight into potential mechanisms underlying individual differences in treatment response in ADHD, which may facilitate more targeted treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207