Neural and Cognitive Predictors of Stimulant Treatment Efficacy in Medication-Naïve ADHD Adults: A Pilot Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Stimulant medications are the main treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), but overall treatment efficacy in adults has less than a 60% response rate. This study aimed to identify neural and cognitive markers predictive of longitudinal improvement in response to stimulant treatment in drug-naïve adults with ADHD. METHOD: We used diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and executive function measures with 36 drug-naïve adult ADHD patients in a prospective study design. RESULTS: Structural connectivity (measured by fractional anisotropy, FA) in striatal regions correlated with ADHD clinical symptom improvement following stimulant treatment (amphetamine or methylphenidate) in better medication responders. A significant positive correlation was also found between working memory performance and stimulant-related symptom improvement. Higher pre-treatment working memory scores correlated with greater response. CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence of pre-treatment neural and behavioral markers predictive of longitudinal treatment response to stimulant medications in adults 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".