Should children with sub-threshold ADHD predominantly inattentive subtype (ADHD-I) symptoms be treated with Sensory ıntegration therapy? A case-control study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Sensory integration therapy is one of the promising preventive therapy options for behavioral and developmental disorders. Hypothesizing a degree of parallelism, this study provides an insight into the effectiveness of the sensory integration therapy potencies for school-aged children with subthreshold ADHD predominantly inattentive subtype. Method: The study was a single-arm clinical trial and 20 patients aged 7–10 years with subthreshold ADHD predominantly inattentive subtype, were included. The sensory integration intervention was prepared in accordance with sensory modulation principles and intervention strategies and lasted 12 weeks with two sessions per week. The effectiveness was assessed using the Conner’s teacher/parent scales, the Clinical Global Impression scale, the Canadian Sensory integration Performance Measure and the Sensory Profile. Results: The rate of patients with typical or better performance in auditory processing domain of the Sensory Profile was found significantly increased after sensory integration therapy; 9 patients (45%) before and 15 patients after (75%) (p=0.031). The rates of participants with typical or better performance in inattention–distractibility factor score of the Sensory Profile were found significantly increased after sensory integration therapy; 6 before (30%) and 16 after (80%) (p=0.006). Conclusion: Sensory integration therapy focuses on supporting persons with varied disability terms to engage in daily life activities that they find significant and purposeful. Difficulties experienced by individuals with subthreshold attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder are addressed in this study and aspects of daily life are explored while swiping through different sensory modalities. Impaired auditory processing improvable through sensory integration therapy was observed in these children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".