MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399238446 · doi:10.1017/s0007114524001132

Evaluating mineral biomarkers as mediators and moderators of behavioural improvements in a randomised controlled trial of multinutrients for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

2024· article· en· W4399238446 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. Robinette, Jeanette M. Johnstone, Priya Srikanth, Alisha M. Bruton, Martina Ralle, Hayleigh K. Ast, Ryan Bradley, Brenda Leung, L. Eugene Arnold, Irene E. Hatsu

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal Of Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institutes of HealthFoundation for Excellence in Mental Health CarePfizerEli Lilly and CompanyOhio State UniversityNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesOregon Health and Science UniversityAutism Speaks
KeywordsAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderRandomized controlled trialMedicineAttention deficitPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologyPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Essential minerals are cofactors for synthesis of neurotransmitters supporting cognition and mood. An 8-week fully-blind randomised controlled trial of multinutrients for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) demonstrated three times as many children (age 6–12) had significantly improved behaviour (‘treatment responders’) on multinutrients (54 %) compared with placebo (18 %). The aim of this secondary study was to evaluate changes in fasted plasma and urinary mineral concentrations following the intervention and their role as mediators and moderators of treatment response. Fourteen essential or trace minerals were measured in plasma and/or urine at baseline and week eight from eighty-six participants (forty-nine multinutrients, thirty-seven placebos). Two-sample t tests/Mann–Whitney U tests compared 8-week change between treatment and placebo groups, which were also evaluated as potential mediators. Baseline levels were evaluated as potential moderators, using logistic regression models with clinical treatment response as the outcome. After 8 weeks, plasma boron, Cr (in females only), Li, Mo, Se and vanadium and urinary iodine, Li and Se increased more with multinutrients than placebo, while plasma phosphorus decreased. These changes did not mediate treatment response. However, baseline urinary Li trended towards moderation: participants with lower baseline urinary Li were more likely to respond to multinutrients (P = 0·058). Additionally, participants with higher baseline Fe were more likely to be treatment responders regardless of the treatment group (P = 0·036.) These results show that multinutrient treatment response among children with ADHD is independent of their baseline plasma mineral levels, while baseline urinary Li levels show potential as a non-invasive biomarker of treatment response requiring further study.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designRandomized trial · Other design
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal Of NutritionSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207