Primer Consenso Argentino sobre el manejo del Trastorno por Déficit de Atención e Hiperactividad en la adultez. Tercera parte: tratamiento integral del TDAH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document corresponds to the third and final part of the First Argentine Consensus on the management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults, focused on summarizing the current evidence on therapeutic approaches to this pathology in adult patients. Following the methodology described in the first and second parts of the Consensus, the panel of experts conducted an exhaustive review of the literature and, as a result of a subsequent debate on the available information, the final part of this document was prepared, covering the comprehensive treatment of adults with this disorder. During the debate and discussion stage, it was decided to structure this final section of the consensus with some points that we believe will be of great use to the interdisciplinary team responsible for managing adult ADHD patients. In this section of the document, you will find general recommendations for pharmacological treatment and the management of adverse effects, comorbidity treatment, non-pharmacological interventions (NPI), as well as the impact of untreated 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".