Clonidine and methylphenidate were effective for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children with comorbid tics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2002) Neurology 58, 527; The Tourette’s Syndrome Study Group. . Treatment of ADHD in children with tics. A randomized controlled trial. . Feb 26; . : . –36 . [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: In children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Tourette’s syndrome (TS), what is the effect of clonidine (CLON), methylphenidate (MPH), or combined CLON and MPH? Randomised (allocation concealed*), blinded {patients, clinicians, data collectors, outcome assessors, data analysts, data safety and monitoring committee, and manuscript writers}*†, placebo controlled trial with 16 weeks of follow up. 11 sites in the US. 136 children between 7 and 14 years of age (mean age 10 y, 85% boys) who had ADHD of any subtype and TS, chronic motor tic disorder, or chronic vocal tic disorder. Exclusion criteria included secondary tic disorder, major depression, pervasive developmental disorder, autism, mental retardation, anorexia nervosa, and bulimia. Follow up was 86%. Children were allocated to receive CLON alone (n=34), MPH alone (n=37), combined CLON and MPH (n=33), or placebo (n=32). … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNeurology%26rft.stitle%253DNeurology%26rft.issn%253D0028-3878%26rft.volume%253D58%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D527%26rft.epage%253D536%26rft.atitle%253DTreatment%2Bof%2BADHD%2Bin%2Bchildren%2Bwith%2Btics%253A%2BA%2Brandomized%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11865128%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=neurology&resid=58/4/527&atom=%2Febmed%2F7%2F5%2F157.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".