Secondary attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following perinatal and childhood stroke: impact on cognitive and academic outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-sectional retrospective clinical research study examines a large group of children followed within a pediatric stroke program and a developmental attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, between May 2004 and June 2016. All children with a history of stroke who participated in a neuropsychological assessment between the ages of 4 and 18 years were considered for inclusion. From a sample of 275 participants with a history of stroke, 36 children (13.1%) received a diagnosis of secondary ADHD. Children with secondary ADHD were younger at the time of stroke and more likely to be identified as having a presumed perinatal stroke and persistent seizures than children without secondary ADHD diagnoses. There were no differences in pattern of lesion, size, or laterality between children who developed secondary ADHD and those who did not. Children with secondary ADHD had the lowest scores across all cognitive and academic measures compared to children with stroke-only and developmental ADHD. Findings highlight the added risk of receiving a diagnosis of secondary ADHD following pediatric stroke. Implications for future research and directed intervention are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".