Core ADHD Symptom Improvement With Atomoxetine Versus Methylphenidate
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.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it