Volumetric MRI differences in treatment-naive vs chronically treated children with ADHD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are differences in the volume of the caudate and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) between children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and controls, and if such differences are related to the subjects' history of stimulant treatment. METHODS: We performed a case-control study in an academic medical center. Twenty-one healthy controls, 16 children with ADHD, combined type with a history of stimulant treatment, and 14 children with ADHD, combined type treatment naïve, underwent structural MRI. All children with ADHD were medication-free at the time of the MRI. Regional hemispheric volumes (in cm3) of caudate and anterior cingulate cortex were determined. RESULTS: There were significant differences bilaterally on caudate volume for both ADHD groups vs controls, with no difference between the ADHD groups on either side. In contrast, the right ACC was significantly smaller for the ADHD-treatment naïve (ADHD/TN) group compared to the ADHD-treated (ADHD/Rx) and control group. The volume of left ACC approached significance contrast between ADHD/RX and ADHD/TN. There were no differences found between the ADHD/Rx and controls on the ACC volumes bilaterally. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicate a relationship of previous treatment history with caudate and anterior cingulate volumetric changes in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder-combined type.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it