MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W65900979

Using long-acting stimulants: does it change ADHD treatment outcome?

2005· article· en· W65900979 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lily Hechtman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Outcome (game theory)PsychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Over 30% of children with ADHD treated with a rigorous multimodal intervention in the MTA study did not reach full functional remission. New long-acting drugs have been developed with this treatment goal in mind. METHODS: Presentations at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry discussed the development of long-acting drugs for ADHD and clinical studies of their efficacy; these presentations are summarized below. RESULTS: Concerta(R) OROS-MPH releases methylphenidate (MPH) in an initial bolus, followed by increasing concentrations throughout the day. This pattern of drug delivery overcomes the development of acute tolerance; classroom analog studies have shown that ADHD symptoms and academic productivity are thereby maintained for 12 hours. A larger open-label study showed that efficacy was maintained through the 12-month study period. An 8-week open-label trial found that OROS-MPH produced significantly higher remission rates than immediate-release MPH (44% vs 16%; p = 0.0002), as well as significantly higher Clinical Global Impression and parent satisfaction scores. Adderall XR(R), an extended-release formulation of mixed amphetamine salts, has recently been withdrawn from the market. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting stimulant formulations have dramatically changed the landscape of ADHD practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.330
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.072 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207