MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594813461 · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12684

Young adult outcomes in the follow‐up of the multimodal treatment study of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: symptom persistence, source discrepancy, and height suppression

2017· article· en· W2594813461 on OpenAlexafffund
James M. Swanson, L. Eugene Arnold, Brooke S. G. Molina, Margaret H. Sibley, Lily Hechtman, Stephen P. Hinshaw, Howard Abikoff, Annamarie Stehli, Elizabeth B. Owens, John T. Mitchell, Quyen Nichols, Laurence L. Greenhill, Betsy Hoza, Jeffrey H. Newcorn, Peter S. Jensen, Benedetto Vitiello, Timothy Wigal, Jeffery N. Epstein, Leanne Tamm, Kimberley D. Lakes, James G. Waxmonsky, Marc Lerner, Joy Etcovitch, Desiree W. Murray, Maximilian Muenke, Maria T. Acosta, Mauricio Arcos‐Burgos, William E. Pelham, Helena C. Kraemer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCarleton UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMcGill UniversityUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of California, IrvineNew York UniversityUniversity of California BerkeleyDuke UniversityEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Drug AbuseColumbia University
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)PsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Multimodal Treatment Study (MTA) began as a 14-month randomized clinical trial of behavioral and pharmacological treatments of 579 children (7-10 years of age) diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-combined type. It transitioned into an observational long-term follow-up of 515 cases consented for continuation and 289 classmates (258 without ADHD) added as a local normative comparison group (LNCG), with assessments 2-16 years after baseline. METHODS: Primary (symptom severity) and secondary (adult height) outcomes in adulthood were specified. Treatment was monitored to age 18, and naturalistic subgroups were formed based on three patterns of long-term use of stimulant medication (Consistent, Inconsistent, and Negligible). For the follow-up, hypothesis-generating analyses were performed on outcomes in early adulthood (at 25 years of age). Planned comparisons were used to estimate ADHD-LNCG differences reflecting persistence of symptoms and naturalistic subgroup differences reflecting benefit (symptom reduction) and cost (height suppression) associated with extended use of medication. RESULTS: For ratings of symptom severity, the ADHD-LNCG comparison was statistically significant for the parent/self-report average (0.51 ± 0.04, p < .0001, d = 1.11), documenting symptom persistence, and for the parent/self-report difference (0.21 ± 0.04, p < .0001, d = .60), documenting source discrepancy, but the comparisons of naturalistic subgroups reflecting medication effects were not significant. For adult height, the ADHD group was 1.29 ± 0.55 cm shorter than the LNCG (p < .01, d = .21), and the comparisons of the naturalistic subgroups were significant: the treated group with the Consistent or Inconsistent pattern was 2.55 ± 0.73 cm shorter than the subgroup with the Negligible pattern (p < .0005, d = .42), and within the treated group, the subgroup with the Consistent pattern was 2.36 ± 1.13 cm shorter than the subgroup with the Inconsistent pattern (p < .04, d = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In the MTA follow-up into adulthood, the ADHD group showed symptom persistence compared to local norms from the LNCG. Within naturalistic subgroups of ADHD cases, extended use of medication was associated with suppression of adult height but not with reduction of symptom severity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations290
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Psychology and PsychiatrySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207