Is the Cogmed program effective for youths with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder under pharmacological treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The primary objective of this study was to examine the effects of the Cogmed training program on working memory among youths 7 to 13 years old, with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) type and comorbidity controlled for. A secondary objective was to examine the generalization of effects to ADHD symptoms, nonverbal reasoning, attentional and executive functions, inhibition, reading comprehension, and mathematical reasoning. Participants were under pharmacological treatment for ADHD combined type and a comorbidity. They were randomized into an experimental group that received the Cogmed program and an active control group that received a low‐intensity comparison version of the training. They were evaluated at three time points: 6 weeks prior to intervention onset (T1), immediately prior to onset (T2), and 1 week following intervention completion (T3). Results indicate no significant effect attributable to the Cogmed program. The fact that participants were on medication at the time of training and evaluation normalized their performances and limited the detection of effects. Moreover, cognitive training did not lead to a reduction in ADHD symptoms or to an improvement in the other cognitive functions measured or in academic performance. The results of this study do not demonstrate the effectiveness of the Cogmed program for youths with ADHD combined type and a comorbidity when they receive the training while under pharmacological treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".