A Controlled Trial of Extended-Release Guanfacine and Psychostimulants on Executive Function and ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of guanfacine extended-release (GXR) versus placebo as adjunct therapy to usual care stimulant therapy in improving executive function in children aged 6 to 12 years diagnosed with ADHD. Method: In this single center, double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial, subjects continued to take their psychostimulant and were randomly assigned at baseline to receive active treatment or placebo first. Efficacy measures included Behavioural Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-P), ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS IV), and Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Safety measures included adverse events and vital signs. Results: Significant benefits of GXR plus psychostimulant were observed on BRIEF-P ( p value = .0392), ADHD-RS-IV ( p < .0001), CGI-S ( p = .0007), and CGI-I ( p = .003). There were no serious adverse events and no new safety signals. Conclusion: Use of GXR as adjunctive therapy to stimulant therapy significantly improves executive function in children 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".