Comorbidity with ADHD Decreases Response to Pharmacotherapy in Children and Adolescents with Acute Mania: Evidence from a Metaanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) influences response to treatment in young patients with acute mania. METHODS: We conducted a metaanalysis of 5 open trials of 100, 35, 41, 60, and 37 children and adolescents. The pooled group included 273 children and adolescents with bipolar disorder (BD), divided into 2 subgroups: those with (n = 132), and those without (n = 141), ADHD comorbidity. RESULTS: There was a moderate and significant reduction in relative risk (RR) favouring treatment response in children and adolescents with BD but without ADHD comorbidity (RR 0.822; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97; P = 0.021). The negative effect of ADHD comorbidity on treatment response was more significant in studies including adolescents only or subjects with BD I only. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that children and adolescents with BD and ADHD tend to be less responsive to drugs used in treatment of acute mania.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".