Assessment of Cognitive Functioning of Methadone-Maintenance Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if methadone-maintained patients (MMP) with cocaine dependence (CD) and/or adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) exhibited compounded cognitive dysfunction associated with their poly-substance use and/or co-morbid psychiatric diagnoses. The sample consisted of 79 MMP (59% male, 51% Caucasian), maintained on methadone doses ranging from 40-130 mg/day, who were placed into one of four diagnostic categories: (1) a control group (no ADHD, no CD) (n = 24), (2) CD alone (n = 18), (3)ADHDalone (n = 18), and (4)ADHD+ CD(n = 19). The California Computerized Assessment Package (CalCAP) was administered to assess cognitive functioning requiring focused and sustained attention in a standardized fashion. There were no group differences on Simple Reaction tasks. Compared to the control group, the ADHD+ CD group was slower and less accurate on 33% of the Choice Reaction (CR) tasks. Specifically, individuals in the ADHD + CD group and the ADHD alone group performed significantly worse on tasks measuring attention and psychomotor responding. These tasks are associated with broader cognitive skills in working memory, language discrimination and flexibility of cognitive sets that may have implications for treatment outcome. Diagnostic services capable of identifying cognitive deficits among MMP with ADHD and/or CD are needed to maximize the likelihood of treatment success and to serve as an indicator for the efficacy of therapeutic approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".