Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With and Without Medication for Adults With ADHD: A Randomized Clinical Trial
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
Objective: Recent trials have demonstrated efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in medicated adults with ADHD. Efficacy of CBT in unmedicated versus medicated adults remains mostly unknown. We evaluated the effects of group CBT alone versus combined with medication on ADHD symptoms and functional outcomes in adult patients. Method: Eighty-eight adults with ADHD received 12 manualized group CBT sessions, accompanied by individual coaching, either without ( n = 46) or with ( n = 42) medication. Treatment effects were evaluated following treatment and 3-month and 6-month follow-up using un-blinded self-report and observer ratings. Results: CBT + medication resulted in greater improvements than CBT alone in ADHD symptoms, organizational skills, and self-esteem. Group differences diminished over follow-up, as the CBT alone group continued improving, while the combined group maintained the gains. Conclusion: CBT + medication outperformed CBT alone for ADHD symptoms, organizational skills, and self-esteem, although its superiority tended to decrease over follow-up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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