Improvement in refractory psychosis after initiating management for underlying ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on a unique clinical case of psychosis precipitated by Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and explore its implications for clinical practice as well as our understanding of these conditions. We describe a clinical case of a 46-year-old male presenting with auditory, olfactory, tactile, and visual hallucinations. We reviewed the literature on reported cases in which psychotic symptoms were treated with stimulant medications for ADHD comorbidity. This case report reveals the potential for properly selected patients to benefit from a consideration of ADHD comorbidity and a trial of treatment with that focus. In addition, the literature reveals a pathophysiologic association between psychosis and ADHD supported by neurobiological data. However, far more research is required to fully understand these conditions and their relationship. We conclude that ADHD and psychosis have some related pathophysiologic mechanisms but their connection has not been adequately explored. This case adds support to literature suggesting that in refractory psychosis, clinicians should re-evaluate the diagnosis and one of the considerations should be ADHD. In certain cases, the presence of psychotic symptoms with ADHD should not exclude the use of stimulants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".