MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152244724 · doi:10.1586/ern.11.175

The use of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for the treatment of ADHD

2012· review· en· W2152244724 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ann Childress, Floyd R. Sallee

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsImpulsivityMethylphenidatePsychologyDextroamphetamineAmphetamineNeurocognitiveDopaminePsychiatryAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderMedicineNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ADHD is a common neurobehavioral disorder characterized by significant impairment in attention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Symptoms begin in childhood and can persist into adulthood. Current data suggest that abnormal functioning of the prefrontal cortex, cortical and subcortical regions of the brain have roles in ADHD. All currently approved drugs used to treat ADHD enhance dopamine and norepinephrine signals in these regions. Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting amphetamine prodrug indicated for the treatment of ADHD and has been shown to be effective in children, adolescents and adults. The prodrug properties of LDX make it a desirable treatment because of its long duration of effect, and low intrasubject and intersubject pharmacokinetic variability, and attenuated response on measures of abuse liability when compared with immediate-release amphetamine. However, LDX is still classified as a controlled substance. In this article, the pharmacokinetic parameters and efficacy and safety of LDX are reviewed.

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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.048 · 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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