The Efficacy of 2 Different Dosages of Methylphenidate in Treating Adults with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of methylphenidate in treating adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using subjective (self-report) and objective (computerized test) measures. METHOD: This double-blind crossover trial of placebo vs methylphenidate included subjects with childhood and current ADHD symptoms, IQs above 80, no other psychiatric condition explaining their difficulties or requiring other treatment, and no substance abuse in the previous 6 months. We administered 10 mg 3 times daily of medication (that is, placebo or methylphenidate) for 2 weeks. On the final day, subjects completed self-report measures and were tested on computerized tests. We then increased dosage to 15 mg 3 times daily for 2 weeks and administered a complete reassessment on the final day. Following a 1-week washout, we repeated this process on the second medication (that is, placebo or methylphenidate). RESULTS: Thirty adults with ADHD participated. Self-report measures and computerized tests showed significant improvements in ADHD symptoms on methylphenidate, compared with placebo. Other psychiatric symptoms (notably, anxiety and depression) were alleviated with methylphenidate. There was no significant difference between the 2 dosages of methylphenidate. CONCLUSION: Methylphenidate is effective in improving ADHD symptoms in adults with ADHD, is well tolerated, and has minimal side effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".