MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283781071 · doi:10.1177/10870547221106238

Analysis of Daily Sleep Diary Measures From Multilayer Extended-Release Methylphenidate (PRC-063) Studies in Children and Adults With ADHD

2022· article· en· W4283781071 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Cataldo, Graeme Donnelly, Andrew J. Cutler, Ann Childress, Jaromir Mikl, Sailaja Bhaskar, James G. Waxmonsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMethylphenidatePsychologyRandomized controlled trialSleep (system call)Attention deficit hyperactivity disorderPediatricsPhysical therapyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of a once-daily extended-release methylphenidate formulation (PRC-063) versus placebo on sleep, measured via daily electronic diary in two clinical trials in pediatric (6-12 years) and adult (≥18 years) patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: A diary was completed by adult patients or parents/caregivers of pediatric patients during two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled laboratory classroom studies. Following dose optimization of PRC-063, patients were randomized to 1 week of double-blind treatment with PRC-063 or placebo before attending a full-day laboratory classroom session. RESULTS: In the studies, 148 pediatric patients and 239 adult patients were randomized to either PRC-063 or placebo. When compared with the diaries of placebo patients, the sleep diaries in both pediatric and adult patients showed no statistical difference in total sleep time, efficiency, or latency. CONCLUSION: PRC-063 did not impact subjective measures of sleep versus placebo in pediatric and adult patients with ADHD.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207