MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021262701 · doi:10.15586/jptcp.v27i2.665

The effects of medication on intraocular pressure in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A prospective study

2020· article· en· W3021262701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oğuz Güvenmez, Mehmet Özgür Çubuk, Serkan Güneş

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylphenidateAtomoxetineAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderMedicineIntraocular pressurePsychiatryChild and adolescent psychiatryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common psychiatric conditions in childhood. Psychopharmacological therapy is an effective treatment for ADHD. In this study, we primarily aim to investigate the effects of psychopharmacological agents on intraocular pressure (IOP) in children with ADHD. The sample included 82 children with ADHD and 36 healthy children aged between 8 and 12 years who were referred to the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Hatay State Hospital, Hatay, Turkey. Children with ADHD were divided into two groups according to the medication used: methylphenidate (MPH) group and atomoxetine (ATX) group. Before treatment and after 1- and 6-month treatment period, IOP was measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry. There were no statistical differences in terms of age, gender, and IOP between the three groups (P > 0.05). After 1- and 6-month treatment, the IOP did not change significantly between baseline and 1 month or 6 months (P > 0.05). Children with ADHD may have an IOP similar to healthy children. Six-month treatment with MPH or ATX may not cause significant changes in IOP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical PharmacologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207