ADHD – the scourge of the 21st century?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is intensively studied by world medical community, its understanding expands, for example, it has now been diagnosed not only in children but also in adults. On the other hand, ADHD raises a number of discussions on the need of its treatment and, if there is a need, how it shall be treated, it is doubtful whether this disorder overall exists, because its "morphological component" has not been identified so far, and all the symptoms of ADHD, including anxiety, concentration difficulties, motor hyperactivity, cognitive disorders or social disadaptation, can be found in a number of mental disorders and somatic diseases. Modern attention, emotional and behavioral changes can be considered as a result of changing human social portrait. Those who question ADHD existence argue that this disorder is likely temperament and parenting matter, rather than the illness, and that the diagnosis and treatment of this illness can be a matter invented by doctors and pharmacists, the aim of which is to tame individuals disregarding public standards of conduct and get the maximum profit from medicines in the treatment of this illness. Due to the fact that ADHD is diagnosed more often, it is even called the twenty-first-century scourge. In this article we will review the historical aspect of formation of ADHD diagnosis, illness etiology, comorbidity with other mental and somatic diseases as well as treatment necessity and opportunities, paying attention to adult ADHD as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".