Systematic review of national and international guidelines on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
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
During the last few years several clinical guidelines on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been published by national and international medical societies. To systematically review and compare recommendations of selected ADHD guidelines, we performed a systematic search in online guideline databases and PubMed in order to retrieve guideline texts. Guidelines meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed and recommendations on assessment and treatment extracted. The AGREE instrument was used to assess methodological quality. Of the 26 guidelines identified, 13 were selected for further analysis: 11 guidelines deal with ADHD in childhood and adolescence and 5 guidelines cover transitional patients and/or ADHD in adults. The methodological quality of ADHD guidelines is moderate to good. They reflect similarities and differences of healthcare systems. Diagnosis throughout the lifespan is based on a detailed clinical history. There is greater agreement on evidence-based pharmacological treatment than on psychosocial interventions, reflecting the strength of evidence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it