Therapeutic Response to Methylphenidate in ADHD: Role of Child and Observer Gender.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the interaction between the gender of the child and the gender of the observers (teachers, parents) on the therapeutic response (TR) noted with methylphenidate (MPH) in children with ADHD. METHOD: Children with ADHD participated in a two week double-blind, randomized, cross-over clinical trial with MPH and placebo, and the difference between the week of treatment with MPH and placebo was calculated for each measure to obtain the treatment response (TR) with MPH. The TR for differences based on the gender of child and the observer was examined by using a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: 299 children (269-male, 30-female; average age 8.9±1.8 years) were evaluated by 52 male teachers, 212 female teachers; 269 female parents and 30 male parents. For the baseline week, the ANCOVA analysis for teachers yielded a significant teacher's gender x child's gender interaction. For the evaluation of TR, the ANCOVA analysis revealed a significant teacher's gender x child's gender interaction whereas no parent's gender x child's gender interactions were noted, all noted interactions were of a small effect size (eta squared <0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there are differences in symptom assessment between parents and teachers at baseline and with TR based on the gender of the observer and the child. While clinicians need to be aware of these interactions, it remains unclear if these interactions will be clinically useful due to the small effect sizes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".