Placebo response and its determinants in children with ADHD across multiple observers and settings: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to quantify placebo response (PR) in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as assessed by parents and teachers and to explore some of its determinants. Five hundred and forty children with ADHD (ages 6-12) were recruited to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial with methylphenidate. The main outcome variable was Conners' Global Index (CGI), based on assessment of behaviour by parents (CGI-P) and teacher (CGI-T). PR was calculated as the difference between CGI-P/T scores at baseline and placebo week. There was a highly significant PR as assessed by the parents' and teachers' (p < 0.001). The magnitude of PR as assessed by parents was greater (10.57 points) compared to that assessed by teachers (3.93 points). The determinants of PR were different between parents and teachers. For parents, income, marital status, education, maternal smoking during pregnancy, and prior psychostimulant exposure (PPE) showed a significant effect on PR. For teachers, only ethnicity and PPE had an effect. The pattern of PR revealed two distinct profiles that may shed some light on the mechanisms involved in PR. PR in children with ADHD varies depending on the setting of the observations and the evaluator. Several psychosocial factors have been identified as modulators of PR. This is relevant for the design and interpretation of clinical trials and for clinical practice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".