Core ADHD Symptom Improvement With Atomoxetine Versus Methylphenidate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies comparing atomoxetine and methylphenidate to treat ADHD symptoms have been equivocal. This noninferiority meta-analysis compared core ADHD symptom response between atomoxetine and methylphenidate in children and adolescents. METHOD: Selection criteria included randomized, controlled design; duration 6 weeks; and assessment of ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator Administered and Scored (ADHDRS) scores. Six-week response rates, defined as ≥40% reduction in ADHDRS total score, were compared using a noninferiority margin of -15%. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria (N = 1,368). After 6 weeks, 53.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48.6%-58.4%) of atomoxetine-treated patients (n = 811) had responded compared with 54.4% (47.6%-61.1%) for methylphenidate (n = 557), with atomoxetine demonstrating noninferiority to methylphenidate (absolute difference -0.9%, 95% CI -9.2%-7.5%). CONCLUSION: After 6 weeks of treatment atomoxetine and methylphenidate had comparable efficacy in reducing core ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".