Placebo Response on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Ratings: Application to Multimodal Treatment Study of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 3-Month Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To characterize the size and course of placebo response in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with informant and moderator effects, and illustrate its importance by comparison to Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA) 3-month data. Methods:In two randomized clinical trials parents and teachers rated DSM-IV ADHD symptoms (Sx) on pill placebo at baseline (BL), 8, 12, and 16 weeks for 57 children age 5–12 with ADHD (25 inattentive, 32 combined type) and on an intense 12-week nonmedical control condition (NMCC) for 27 children age 6–12. Results:Parent- and teacher-rated placebo effects peaked at 12 and 8 weeks, respectively. Changes from BL are significant (p = 0.001) by parent and teacher on inattentive Sx (d = .60, .56 for pill placebo; d = 1.48, .51 for NMCC) and on hyperactive/impulsive Sx by parent (d = 0.48 pill; d = 1.26 NMCC). Teacher-rated hyperactive/impulsive show greater placebo effect September–January than February–May (p = 0.017). Teacher-rated inattentive Sx shows a significant (p = 0.033) interaction of season*subtype. Compared to placebo data, MTA treatments show significant benefit (p = 0.000) at 3 months on both inattentive and HYP/IMP symptoms for medication management and combination groups but not for behavioral treatment (Beh) or community comparison groups, except for teacher-rated HYP/IMP for Beh (p = 0.002). Conclusions:Parent/teacher ratings show a medium placebo effect for pill placebo and a large effect (d > 1.2) by parent for intense, complex NMCC, suggesting that parent-rated placebo response depends on the complexity/intensity of the control condition. Raters agree on inattentive but diverge on HYP/IMP Sx. Teachers’ perceptions of HYP/IMP severity change by season. Pill placebo data indirectly support the 3-month efficacy of two MTA treatments, combination and medication management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".