10.1708/1178.13052
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has been originally described as a disorder of childhood and adolescence. In the last years, a huge amount of evidence supports a syndromal continuity form childhood to adulthood. the identification of ADHD in adults raises several problems of differential diagnosis and the disorder is frequently associated with other mental disorders, at least in patients referred to psychiatric settings. It is not clear if adult ADHD is characterized by a specific pattern of symptoms that include attentive deficits and consequent behavioral manifestations, instead of hyperactivity. Comorbidity with other mental disorders influences clinical picture, severity, course and treatment outcome. In particular comorbid ADHD, bipolar disorder and alcohol/substance abuse disorders coexist in a relevant proportion of cases and it might represent a specific phenoptype, associated with treatment resistance. Substances use, often poly-drug abuse, such as alcohol, cocaine, stimulants and heroin, inevitably complicates course and therapeutic choice. The recognition of ADHD in adults has important implications at therapeutic level, even when present as incomplete and residual forms. Psychostimulants and other compounds with specific efficacy on ADHD symptomatology has been shown to be useful also in adults both in monotherapy and in association with other drugs, such as mood stabilizers. However their use should be cautious when a mood disorder coexists, for the possible induction of manic-switches or rapid cycling. Further research is necessary in order to better characterize the clinical picture of ADHD in adults and to elaborate widely shared treatment guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.954 | 0.960 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".