Secondary attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following perinatal and childhood stroke: impact on cognitive and academic outcomes
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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