Active Involvement of Children in ADHD Randomized Control Trials Assessing Sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the increase in childhood ADHD diagnoses has been closely followed by a surge in the prescription of medication for children. The active involvement of children in medical interventions and clinical trials is part of children's rights. It is of the utmost importance that during the course of treatment, children are exercising their rights to informed consent or assent and expressing their views to ensure they are leading personally meaningful lives. The child’s participation in ADHD randomized control trials (RCTs) will be investigated from a child’s rights perspective because the symptoms heavily affect the daytime functioning and quality of life of children. Our objectives include how was the child involved in the consenting process, and was the child directly involved in any of the tools used to measure ADHD, sleep, miscellaneous outcomes, the reporting of adverse events; or was a proxy used. This knowledge will help to determine if the child’s rights are being properly considered in ADHD RCTs as well as to guide future studies in the consenting procedure.
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 | 0.399 | 0.569 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".