Issues in the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper briefly discusses the history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) before proceeding to review and critique the recently published DSM-IV criteria for ADHD as well as the draft ICD-10 criteria proposed for its counterpart, the hyperkinetic disorder. In addition to covering the similarities and differences between these two systems, this paper critically discusses continuing limitations in these approaches to clinical diagnosis. Despite these ongoing diagnostic limitations, substantial research in both Great Britain and North America exists to show that ADHD is a valid condition that is separable from yet often associated with conduct disorder and hostile-defiant behaviour. Further research will no doubt help to resolve the current problems with diagnostic criteria to yield even greater separation of the construct of ADHD from other childhood psychological disorders. Article: Within the United States and Canada, clinicians and researchers typically use the term,
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 | 0.052 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".