Reading Outcomes of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Dyslexia Following Atomoxetine Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Abstract Objective: This study assessed the efficacy of atomoxetine on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children and adolescents having ADHD with comorbid dyslexia (ADHD+D) and the effects of the treatment on reading measures. METHODS: The analyses in this report used data from a study designed to examine the effects of a nonstimulant pharmacological agent, atomoxetine, on reading in children with ADHD+D. Patients ages 10-16 years with ADHD or ADHD+D received open-label atomoxetine for 16 weeks. The ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) and reading subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (K-TEA) were assessed. Changes in ADHD symptoms and reading scores were also analyzed by ADHD subtype. Treatment effect sizes and correlations between changes in ADHDRS and K-TEA scores were calculated. RESULTS: After atomoxetine treatment, both ADHD and ADHD+D patient groups showed significant reduction in ADHD symptom and improvements in K-TEA reading scores. The range of treatment effect sizes on K-TEA scores was 0.35-0.53 for the ADHD group and 0.50-0.62 for the ADHD+D group. Pearson's correlation coefficients revealed only a few weak correlations between changes in ADHD symptoms and reading scores, regardless of diagnostic group. CONCLUSIONS: ADHD symptoms and K-TEA reading scores improved for both the ADHD and ADHD+D groups following atomoxetine treatment. Correlation analyses indicate that improvements in reading outcomes cannot be explained by a reduction of ADHD symptoms alone. These findings support further exploration of the potential effects of atomoxetine on reading in children with ADHD and dyslexia or dyslexia alone.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it