Diagnostic Instability of<i>DSM–IV</i>ADHD Subtypes: Effects of Informant Source, Instrumentation, and Methods for Combining Symptom Reports
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
Using data from 123 children (aged 6-12 years) referred consecutively to a pediatric neuropsychiatry clinic by community physicians for assessment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and related problems, we investigated the effects of informant (parent, teacher), tool (interview, rating scale), and method for combining symptom reports ("and," "or" algorithms), on the diagnosis of ADHD and its subtypes. Results indicated that as many as 50% of cases were reclassified from one subtype to another, depending on whether information was derived from one or two informants, a semistructured clinical interview and/or rating scale, and the algorithm used to combine informant reports. We conclude that the diagnosis of DSM-IV ADHD subtypes is capricious in that it is influenced by clinicians' decisions regarding informants, instrumentation, and method for aggregating information across informants and instruments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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