Biomarker Research in ADHD: the Impact of Nutrition (BRAIN) - study protocol of an open-label trial to investigate the mechanisms underlying the effects of a few-foods diet on ADHD symptoms in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood behavioural disorder, causing significant impediment to a child's development. It is a complex disorder with numerous contributing (epi)genetic and environmental factors. Currently, treatment consists of behavioural and pharmacological therapy. However, ADHD medication is associated with several side effects, and concerns about long-term effects and efficacy exist. Therefore, there is considerable interest in the development of alternative treatment options. Double-blind research investigating the effects of a few-foods diet (FFD) has demonstrated a significant decrease in ADHD symptoms following an FFD. However, an FFD requires a considerable effort of both child and parents, limiting its applicability as a general ADHD treatment. To make FFD intervention less challenging or potentially obsolete, we need to understand how, and in which children, an FFD affects ADHD behaviour and, consequently, the child's well-being. We hypothesise that an FFD affects brain function, and that the nutritional impact on ADHD is effectuated by a complex interplay between the microbiota, gut and brain, that is, the microbiota-gut-brain axis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Biomarker Research in ADHD: the Impact of Nutrition (BRAIN) study is an open-label trial with researchers blinded to changes in ADHD symptoms during sample processing and initial data analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research and Ethics Committee of Wageningen University has approved this study (NL63851.081.17, application 17/24). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, conference presentations, (social) media and the BRAIN study website. A summary of the findings will be provided to the participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03440346. STUDY DATES: Collection of primary outcome data started in March 2018 and will be ongoing until 100 children have participated in the study. Sample data analysis will start after all samples have been collected.
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 | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.008 |
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".