ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Distinguishing different types of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children using artificial neural network with clinical intelligent test.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning for ADHD Diagnosis: Feature Selection from Parent Reports, Self-Reports and Neuropsychological Measures.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Early detection of risks in child development in Spanish-speaking countries: content validity.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of mental disorders using machine learning: Literature review and bibliometric mapping from 2012 to 2023.Heliyon · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a well-studied topic in child and adolescent psychiatry. ADHD diagnosis relies on information from an assessment scale used by teachers and parents and psychological assessment by physicians; however, the assessment results can be inconsistent. Purpose: To construct models that automatically distinguish between children with predominantly inattentive-type ADHD (ADHD-I), with combined-type ADHD (ADHD-C), and without ADHD. Methods: Clinical records with age 6-17 years-old, for January 2011-September 2020 were collected from local general hospitals in northern Taiwan; the data were based on the SNAP-IV scale, the second and third editions of Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT), and various intelligence tests. This study used an artificial neural network to construct the models. In addition, Results: We collected 328 records using CPT-3 and 239 records using CPT-2. With regard to distinguishing between ADHD-I and ADHD-C, a combination of demographic information, SNAP-IV scale results, and CPT-2 results yielded overall accuracies of 88.75 and 85.56% in the training and testing sets, respectively. The replacement of CPT-2 with CPT-3 results in this model yielded an overall accuracy of 90.46% in the training set and 89.44% in the testing set. With regard to distinguishing between ADHD-I, ADHD-C, and the absence of ADHD, a combination of demographic information, SNAP-IV scale results, and CPT-2 results yielded overall accuracies of 86.74 and 77.43% in the training and testing sets, respectively. Conclusion: This proposed model distinguished between the ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups with 85-90% accuracy, and it distinguished between the ADHD-I, ADHD-C, and control groups with 77-86% accuracy. The machine learning model helps clinicians identify patients with ADHD in a timely manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.