Differential Treatment Effects of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine on Executive Functions in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of methylphenidate and atomoxetine on improving executive functions among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: This was an open-label, head-to-head, 3-month, randomized clinical trial with two-arm parallel-treatment groups: osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH; n = 79) and atomoxetine once daily ( n = 78). Three major domains of executive functions were assessed, including response selection/inhibition, flexibility, and planning/working memory. The neuropsychological measures included the Conners' continuous performance test and the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Results: We found that both treatment groups showed improvement in executive functions ( p -value <0.05 for the major indices of each domain). In addition, OROS-MPH was associated with a greater magnitude of improvement in the response selection/inhibition; the slope for detectability improvement in the Conners' continuous performance test was 0.06 for atomoxetine and 0.15 for OROS-MPH ( p -value <0.01); the slope in rapid visual information processing was 2.22 for atomoxetine and 3.45 for OROS-MPH ( p -value <0.05). Conclusion: Both OROS-MPH and atomoxetine improved various domains of executive functions in children with ADHD. There is greater improvement in response selection/inhibition among patients treated with OROS-MPH than those with atomoxetine. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT00916786).
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.
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 it