Treatment response to supplemental nutrients for ADHD is independent of diet quality: the MADDY Study RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The 8-week Micronutrients for ADHD in Youth (MADDY) randomized controlled trial (N = 126, age 6–12) of broad-spectrum multinutrients for ADHD with emotional dysregulation found 3 times as many responders with multinutrients (54%) compared to placebo (18%) by Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I). Our primary aim for this analysis tests the hypothesis that those with poor overall diet quality at baseline benefit more. The second aim is to explore whether specific components of diet quality moderate treatment response.Methods 124 children (69 multinutrients, 55 placebo) had diet quality assessed using the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015). For each potential moderator, the outcome CGI-I at week 8 (RCT-end), was modeled two ways: (1) as a dichotomous variable: responder/non-responder, with responders defined by a rating of 1 or 2 ‘very much’ or ‘much improved,’ all else equals non-responder using logistic regression, and (2) as a dimensional improvement outcome from 1 = very much improved to 7 = very much worse, using linear regression.Results HEI-2015 total score did not moderate treatment response [odds ratio = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.90,1.10), p = 0.984] or improvement [β = −0.01 (95% CI: −0.06,0.04), p = 0.648]. However, total vegetable intake moderated level of improvement in exploratory analysis [β = −0.48 (95% CI: −0.82, −0.13), p = 0.007]: those with higher baseline vegetable intake showed greater benefit from multinutrients compared to placebo.Conclusions Multinutrients may benefit children with ADHD and irritability regardless of overall diet quality. The finding that higher baseline vegetable intake may improve response to multinutrients deserves further exploration, including dietary effect on gut microbiota and absorption of multinutrients and parental factors.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".