In Search of “Anything That Would Help”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study explores parents' perceptions about the future clinical translation of neurotechnologies--neuroimaging and genetic testing separately and together--for instrumentalization in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood ADHD. METHOD: We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with parents of minor children diagnosed with ADHD (N = 26) and analyzed 11.75 hr of data using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Receptivity to technology and anticipation of potential benefits overshadowed discussion of risks or concerns. Four key areas of potential impact on parent experience are (a) insight and acceptance, (b) treatment and adherence, (c) stigma and blame, and (d) the endeavor to access resources. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight high receptivity to emerging neurotechnologies for ADHD, key areas for which parents anticipate support from these technologies, and ethics challenges to clinical translation in light of parents' salient hope and minimal consideration of risk in their pursuit of "anything that would help."
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".