MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752306500 · doi:10.1177/1087054717723987

Working Memory Training for Adults With ADHD

2017· article· en· W2752306500 on OpenAlex
Amélie Dentz, Marie‐Claude Guay, Véronique Parent, Lucía Romo

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryPsychologyWorking memory trainingGeneralizationExecutive functionsIntervention (counseling)Nonverbal communicationCognitive trainingShort-term memoryAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of Cogmed training on working memory in adults with ADHD, including the generalization of effects to nonverbal reasoning, executive function in daily life, and ADHD symptoms. Method: Adults of ages 18 to 63 with ADHD were randomly assigned to an experimental group that received the working memory training or to a placebo group that received a low-intensity comparison version of the training. Results: participants in the experimental group showed greater improvement in verbal and visuospatial working memory capacity. Effects persisted 6 months after intervention completion. However, effects did not generalize elsewhere. Conclusion: The results challenge the claims made by Cogmed to the effect that the program is effective in treating attention problems and improving performance in daily life over the long term in adults with ADHD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.269 · 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