A Quantitative Comparison Approach for Methylphenidate Drug Regimens in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Different methylphenidate (MPH) formulations, immediate release (IR) or extended release (ER), have been developed to treat Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). A better use of these formulations, with a proper choice of their timing, dosage, and combination, can help to attain optimal therapeutic effect while maintaining a good quality of life. In this study, we aim at presenting a quantitative comparison approach to help identify drug regimens that provide best therapeutic performances and respect patients' specific needs. METHODS: Using pharmacokinetic (PK) models of various MPH formulations constructed with data in hand and a formerly developed performance metric for MPH regimens, we proposed a statistical integral strategy for regimen comparison, which comprises a sequential, a relative, and a probability-over-threshold method. The first is hierarchical in nature and sequentially compares the regimen performance, the total daily dose, and the administration frequency. The second compares two regimens by quantifying their similarity. The third computes the probability of an incremental regimen performance over a specified threshold. The first two comparison approaches are used for naive patients, whereas the third one is for patients under treatment. RESULTS: PK models of one compartment effectively describe both the IR and ER data. Applied to three frequent MPH clinical situations, the three-methods strategy is able to distinguish the regimens proposed for each. A combined regimen of IR and ER taken at the same time performs better than a single ER dose. CONCLUSION: The proposed statistical strategy is able to differentiate ADHD regimens in various clinically relevant situations, and adapt the use of MPH drugs to a patient's daily routine. Since it does not compare fixed doses and formulations but rather any MPH regimen, our approach generalizes the current context of bioequivalence study and provides an accessible computational tool for objectively selecting MPH regimens.
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".