MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166961940 · doi:10.1586/14737175.2014.932691

The use of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for the treatment of ADHD and other psychiatric disorders

2014· review· en· W2166961940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos Roncero, E. Alvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulantMethylphenidateProdrugTolerabilityDopaminePharmacologyAtomoxetineAmphetamineDopaminergicPsychiatryDextroamphetaminePsychologyMedicineAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting oral prodrug stimulant. It is inactive until enzymatically hydrolyzed in the blood to active D-amphetamine. The pharmacological action of this compound involves blocking norepinephrine (NE) and dopamine reuptake into presynaptic neurons and promoting the release of NE and dopamine into the extraneuronal space. LDX has been approved for treating ADHD, which is the most common psychiatric disorder in children and adolescents. Also, LDX has been proposed for other psychiatric conditions related with dopaminergic and NE CNS. LDX is the first long-acting oral prodrug indicated for the treatment of ADHD in children (6-12 years), adolescents (13-17 years) and in adults in the USA and Canada, whereas, in Europe, LDX is licensed in several countries for the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD who have had a clinically inadequate response to methylphenidate. This article covers the most important pharmacological aspects of LDX as well as data on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of this long-acting amphetamine prodrug collected from clinical studies recently published in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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