Improving the Psychosocial Assessment of Young People with ADHD: Clinical and Ethical Issues from the Quebec Experience (I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is often diagnosed in childhood and can persist into adulthood. This disorder is characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that significantly interfere with daily functioning. In Quebec, there is a problem of overdiagnosis and overprescription of psychostimulants compared to the usual global statistics. In fact, the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is normally based on a detailed clinical assessment, including analysis of medical, family, and environmental history, as well as the use of validated rating scales and structured clinical interviews that understand their limitations. However, the differential diagnosis is challenging due to the presence of various comorbidities, such as mood disorders, anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, and learning disabilities. In addition, some modern environmental factors, such as excessive screen exposure, have been associated with symptoms of inattention, agitation, and impulsivity in children. Since secure attachment relationships play a crucial role in a child's development, things like family instability, high parental stress, lack of emotional availability, or inconsistent parenting practices can weaken attachment and lead to “Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder-Like” behaviors. Beyond the clinical issues, it is also an ethical concern to ensure that the therapeutic direction is optimized for the benefit of the patient. This article examines the issues related to the diagnostic process by emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive and integrative assessment that considers environmental and relational factors. Such an approach makes it possible to better distinguish attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from other pathologies and to develop appropriate therapeutic strategies, ranging from conventional pharmacological treatments to interventions focused on managing exposure to screens and strengthening secure attachment bonds. This comprehensive diagnostic framework offers large potential to improve patient care and optimize long-term clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".