MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000359011 · doi:10.1177/1087054719896853

Efficacy and Safety of PRC-063, Extended-Release Multilayer Methylphenidate in Adults with ADHD Including 6-Month Open-Label Extension

2020· article· en· W3000359011 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret D. Weiss, Ann Childress, Graeme Donnelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
FundersPurdue Pharma
KeywordsMethylphenidatePlaceboOpen labelPsychologyDouble blindInsomniaAdverse effectPopulationRating scaleSafety profilePsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 16-hr multilayer-release methylphenidate (PRC-063) in a community-based adult ADHD population. Method: In a double-blind study, 375 participants were randomized to one of four fixed doses of PRC-063 or placebo. The primary outcome was the ADHD-Rating Scale-5 (RS). The first 50% of double-blind completers were invited to participate in a 6-month dose-optimized open-label study to assess response and safety. Results: In total, 333 participants completed the double-blind trial; 184 entered the open-label study. PRC-063 produced greater symptom reduction in ADHD-RS-5 total score from baseline compared with placebo in the double-blind study (least-square [LS] mean = −4.7 [−7.7, −1.6], p = .003). The most frequent adverse events were headache, insomnia, and decreased appetite. No significant sleep quality impact was observed ( p = .123). Significant improvements in ADHD-RS-5 scores from baseline continued through the open-label study ( p < .0001), coincident with dose optimization. Conclusion: PRC-063 was well tolerated and significantly improved ADHD symptomatology in adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207