Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Adult Laboratory Classroom Study of the Efficacy and Safety of PRC-063 (Extended-Release Methylphenidate) for the Treatment of ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and duration of action of the once-daily extended-release methylphenidate formulation PRC-063 for the treatment of ADHD in an adult laboratory classroom (ALC). METHOD: After dose optimization with PRC-063 over 7 weeks, adults with ADHD were randomized to 1 week of double-blind treatment with PRC-063 or placebo that ended with an ALC evaluation. The primary outcome measure was Permanent Product Measure of Performance-Total (PERMP-T) score. RESULTS: Of 288 subjects enrolled, 221 completed the ALC visit. PERMP-T score was significantly higher for PRC-063 versus placebo at every assessment from 1 to 16 hours post-dose at the ALC visit and when averaged over 16 hours post-dose (least-squares mean difference 16.3, 95% confidence interval 7.6-24.9). The most frequent adverse events during dose optimization were headache, decreased appetite, and insomnia. CONCLUSION: PRC-063 provided rapid and sustained symptom relief in adults with ADHD and was well tolerated. NCT03618030.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".