MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137164996 · doi:10.1586/ern.10.146

Aggression in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

2010· review· en· W2137164996 on OpenAlexaff
Sará King, Daniel A. Waschbusch

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsAggressionAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychologyClinical psychologyConduct disorderDevelopmental psychologyAttention deficitsCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research shows that aggression is an important associated feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is important in understanding the impact of the disorder and its treatment. The occurrence of aggressive behavior in combination with ADHD does not appear to be spurious and the severity and/or presence of aggression and ADHD may significantly impact long-term prognosis. This article defines subtypes of aggression in relation to ADHD, identifies individual differences contributing to aggressive behavior in children with ADHD and discusses selected possible underlying mechanisms of aggression in ADHD, as well as current and emerging treatment approaches. Although aggressive behavior in children with ADHD is common, the reasons for this are not yet well understood. Multidisciplinary research should focus on investigating underlying mechanisms related to aggression in ADHD, as well as the utility of various treatment modalities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207