Efficacy of reboxetine in adults with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of reboxetine, a specific noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor, in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: In a double blind placebo-controlled clinical trial, the efficacy of 8 mg/day of reboxetine (twice daily) was compared with placebo in 40 adults diagnosed with ADHD during 6 weeks. The measures were Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Self-Report, Screening Version (CAARS-S, SV), Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Rating Scales, Clinical Global Impression - Severity Scale (CGI-S), and Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). RESULTS: There was a main effect of time and significant time X treatment (reboxetine vs. placebo) interaction on CAARS subscales and CGI scores which decreased along the study (p < 0.01). There was also a main effect of time and time X treatment interaction on GAF score which increased at the end point of the study (p < 0.01). In terms of Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Rating Scales there was just a main effect of time on Hamilton Depression Scale (p < 0.01). Irritability, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and dry mouth were the common side effects of reboxetine. CONCLUSION: Reboxetine could be used and tolerated as an effective treatment for adults with ADHD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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, 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".