Primer Consenso Argentino sobre el manejo del Trastorno por Déficit de Atención e Hiperactividad en la adultez. Segunda parte: clínica del TDAH en la adultez, evaluación diagnostica, comorbilidades y diagnósticos diferenciales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document constitutes the second section of the First Argentine Consensus on the management of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adulthood. The focus of this section is the synthesis of updated evidence on comprehensive therapeutic approaches to the condition in adult patients. The methodology described in the first part of the Consensus was followed, with the panel of experts carrying out an exhaustive review of the literature. This was followed by a subsequent debate on the available information, which resulted in the generation of this second section of the document, covering clinical and diagnostic aspects. During the debate and discussion stage of the formulation of these guidelines, it was decided to incorporate some points that are believed to be of great utility for the interdisciplinary team responsible for the management of ADHD patients in adulthood. In this sense, the second part of this document will address the clinical aspects of ADHD in adulthood, diagnostic assessment, neuropsychological profile, comorbidities and differential diagnoses.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".