Methylphenidate Blood Levels and Therapeutic Response in Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder I. Effects of Different Dosing Regimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Methylphenidate (MPH) is a drug of choice for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), although its use has been complicated by its short duration of action. The development of ideal long-acting preparations requires detailed understanding of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic consequences of complex dosing regimens. The purpose of this study was to ascertain if administration paradigms that produce stable or rising MPH levels alter the rate with which MPH is absorbed, and to determine how effectively long-acting administration paradigms compare with thrice daily administration of immediate-release MPH. METHOD: Forty-eight boys diagnosed with ADHD (mean age 10.6 +/- 1.1 year) participated in this double-blind, parallel group study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and efficacy and of 1 mg/kg/day MPH administered in five different paradigms and placebo. Objective measures of activity and attention (McLean Motion Attention Test; M-MAT) and plasma measures of d- and l-MPH were obtained hourly during the course of a 12-hour laboratory session. RESULTS: The rate of absorption and elimination of d-MPH was dependent on the pattern of administration, particularly on the initial bolus concentration. This suggests that d-MPH may act on the gastrointestinal system to slow absorption of additional d-MPH. There were significant differences among regimens on time course and degree of therapeutic response. Pulsatile administration produced greater improvement than escalating levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".