CAN METHYLPHENIDATE USE IN CHILDREN/ADOLESCENTS FOR TREATMENT OF ADHD LEAD TO DEVELOPMENT OF BRUXISM: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This current short review aims to evaluate if there is any association between methylphenidate usage in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and development of Bruxism. Materials and methods: Prospero registered (CRD42024538678). PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google scholar was searched using pre-specified search strategy. Clinical studies, case-reports and case series are included for the data synthesis. Exclusion criteria is narrative and systematic reviews. Results: A total of 135 titles were screened rigorously by two independent evaluators and after duplicate exclusion, removal of irrelevant titles, 10 articles were included for full text analysis out of which 8 qualified for final data synthesis. Conclusion: Most of the studies included in the current review suggests that there is an association between methylphenidate usage and development of Bruxism in children with ADHD but the evidence is weak as most of the included studies are case reports and more studies are required to confirm the same
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".