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: ADHD presents significant challenges to adults. The current review's goals are (a) to critically examine the current state of knowledge regarding ADHD in adults and (b) to provide clinicians with practice-friendly information regarding assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. METHOD: Searches of PsycINFO and Medline were conducted, and reference lists from articles and books were searched for additional relevant references. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: A valid and reliable assessment should be comprehensive and include the use of symptom rating scales, a clinical interview, neuropsychological testing, and the corroboration of patient reports. Specific diagnostic criteria that are more sensitive and specific to adult functioning are needed. In treatment, pharmacological interventions have the most empirical support, with the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine and the antidepressants desipramine and atomoxetine having the highest efficacy rates. Scientific research on psychosocial treatments is lacking, with preliminary evidence supporting the combination of cognitive behavioral therapy and medication.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it