Efficacy of methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities: a randomized crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities respond differently to methylphenidate (MPH) compared with children with ADHD only. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 2-week crossover trial of MPH, during which response to MPH was assessed. Learning ability was appraised using the Wide Range Achievement Test, Revised (WRAT-R), for English-speaking students and the Test de rendement pour francophones for French-speaking students. The study was conducted at the Douglas Hospital, a McGill University-affiliated teaching hospital in Montréal. Ninety-five children, aged 6-12 years, who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), criteria for ADHD participated in the study, which ran from 2001 to 2004. The outcome measure used was the Consensus Clinical Response, an indicator of the degree of clinical improvement shown when taking MPH. RESULTS: The proportion of children with learning disabilities who responded to MPH (55%) was significantly smaller (chi(2)1 = 4.5, p = 0.034) than the proportion of children without learning disabilities who responded adequately to MPH (75%). This difference was mainly because of children with mathematics disability being particularly unresponsive to MPH (chi(2)1 = 4.5, p = 0.034). Children with reading disability did not show this pattern of poor response (chi(2)1 = 1.0, p = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Children with ADHD and comorbid learning disability tended to respond more poorly to MPH. In particular, children with disability in mathematics responded less to MPH than those without disability in mathematics. Additional therapy may be indicated for this group of patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".