Studying the Effectiveness of Combination Therapy (Based on Executive Function and Sensory Integration) Child-Centered on the Symptoms of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to examine the effectiveness of combination therapy based on executive function and sensory integration child-centered on ADHD. For this purpose, from among all first, second and third grade primary school students in Shiraz, 40 children were selected. The selected students were randomly assigned in two groups of experimental (n = 20) and control group (n = 20) by random method through internet call from Education site, and by Clinical Interview, implementation of CSI-4 parent form, and according to the criteria for entry and after matching. Combination therapy based on executive function and sensory integration includes 24 sessions of an hour and a half, in groups of five in four groups of children that was held three times a week. Pre-test and post-test in both groups was performed using CSI-4 parent form. Data obtained were analyzed using analysis of covariance and SPSS software. The results showed that combination therapy based on executive function and sensory integration child-centered reduces attention deficit and hyperactivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".