MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533615582 · doi:10.1177/1087054716672335

The Time Course of Effect of Multilayer-Release Methylphenidate Hydrochloride Capsules: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Adults With ADHD in a Simulated Adult Workplace Environment

2016· article· en· W2533615582 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon B. Wigal, Tim Wigal, Ann Childress, Graeme Donnelly, Joseph L. Reiz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
FundersPurdue PharmaShireEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPlaceboCrossover studyMethylphenidatePsychologyRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectYoung adultInsomniaMedicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicineAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the onset and duration of efficacy of multilayer-release methylphenidate (PRC-063) over 16 hr compared with placebo in adults with ADHD using the simulated adult workplace environment. Method: After dose-optimization with PRC-063, participants entered a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phase. Primary outcome measure was the Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) total score measured pre-dose and from 1 to 16 hr post-dose. Results: Of the 59 randomized participants, 45 participants completed the study. While receiving PRC-063, adults had greater mean PERMP total scores across all time points compared with placebo (268.7 ± 11.24 vs. 255.6 ± 10.87; p = .0064). Common adverse events were decreased appetite, headache, and insomnia. There was no significant impact on overall sleep quality ( p = .9542). Conclusion: PRC-063 significantly improved PERMP scores with an onset within 1 hr post-dose, and maintained improvement throughout the 16 hr post-dose study period compared with placebo in adults with ADHD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207