MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115973977 · doi:10.1586/14737175.5.1.107

Treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults

2005· review· en· W2115973977 on OpenAlexaff
Brain Greenfield, Lily Hechman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtomoxetineAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderMethylphenidatePsychiatryCognitionPsychosocialClinical psychologyPopulationPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of medication and psychologic treatment options for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have become available during the past 5 years, while others are under investigation. This review describes the safety and effectiveness of the stimulants (i.e., methylphenidate and dexedrine), and particularly the newer long-acting stimulants (i.e., Concerta) and Adderall XR) in the treatment of this population. Some nonstimulant/nonantidepressants, particularly atomoxetine, have also been shown to improve attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Combination treatment of stimulants and antidepressants require more study with regard to safety and efficacy. Psychosocial interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness training and cognitive remediation) can also benefit adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Cognitive behavioral therapy combined with medication is more effective than either intervention alone, especially for addressing the emotional and functional aspects of peoples lives and thus improving occupational, interpersonal and emotional outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.417
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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