Response to Methylphenidate in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Manic Symptoms in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Titration Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent reports raise concern that children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and some manic symptoms may worsen with stimulant treatment. This study examines the response to methylphenidate in such children. METHODS: Data from children participating in the 1-month methylphenidate titration trial of the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD were reanalyzed by dividing the sample into children with and without some manic symptoms. Two "mania proxies" were constructed using items from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) or the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Treatment response and side effects are compared between participants with and without proxies. RESULTS: Thirty-two (11%) and 29 (10%) participants fulfilled criteria for the CBCL mania proxy and DISC mania proxy, respectively. Presence or absence of either proxy did not predict a greater or lesser response or side effects. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that children with ADHD and manic symptoms respond robustly to methylphenidate during the first month of treatment and that these children are not more likely to have an adverse response to methylphenidate. Further research is needed to explore how such children will respond during long-term treatment. Clinicians should not a priori avoid stimulants in children with ADHD and some manic symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".