MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065658382 · doi:10.1586/14737175.7.10.1375

Current issues and trends in the diagnosis and treatment of adults with ADHD

2007· article· en· W2065658382 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy Cumyn, Dušan Kolar, Amanda Keller, Lily Hechtman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtomoxetineAnxietyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychiatryStimulantPsychologyClinical psychologySubstance abuseComorbidityDepression (economics)PopulationMedicineMethylphenidate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been commonly thought of as a childhood disorder that diminished over time. It is one of the most common developmental disorders and it is estimated that ADHD affects 5-10% of children. Two-thirds of children with ADHD will continue to have symptoms of ADHD that persist throughout adolescence. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that symptoms of ADHD can also remain in adulthood, affecting 4.4% of the adult population. However, diagnosing adults with ADHD can prove difficult because they often find that their symptoms are egosyntonic. In addition, the development of comorbid conditions, such as anxiety, depression, personality disorders or substance abuse, can often overshadow underlying ADHD symptoms. Nonetheless, treatments such as stimulant and nonstimulant medication (e.g., atomoxetine), and cognitive-behavior therapy have been effective in treating adults with ADHD. This article reviews the prevalence of adults with ADHD, followed by a discussion of the neurobiological and genetic underpinnings of the disorder. Issues regarding the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD are also addressed.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207