4 ms·

> Who doesn't believe in accurate diagnosis? I do. Then you shouldn't be pushing ADHD meds on 6-7 year olds. > I'm providing data and you haven't. When it get

> Who doesn't believe in accurate diagnosis? I do. Then you shouldn't be pushing ADHD meds on 6-7 year olds. > I'm providing data and you haven't. When it gets to last 2 years of high school meds matter, but what if they've repeated a grade already? That's not fair to them. You are aware I was talking about 6-7 year olds based on what I wrote in the first comment I replied to, right? I'm not talking about high school students or even Jr High students. I'm perfectly fine with them being diagnosed at that point. I think the problem is you are missing what part of the OP I was talking about.

eruditely 11y ago
They're still behind in effective brain development no matter what. When they're in high school, say 14 years old 14-4.2= 9.8, so they're 9.8 on avg in exec functioning. It isn't the same thing. But yes, wait a medium amount.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  > They're still behind in effective brain development no matter what. The whole point of the article is they were "finding" 20-100% of the younger members of the same grade level had ADHD. ADHD shouldn't be detected at 20-100% higher rates at 6 instead of 7 at the same grade level if the process was working correctly. That isn't okay. Period. Maybe I take this a bit personally because I have a friend who had all 3 kids who were misdiagnosed at 7-8 and at 8-9 they were told they were "normal" and to stop medication. ADHD doesn't magically cure itself in a year.
  - eruditely 11y ago
    Look at the extensive literature regarding children at this. http://www.filedropper.com/russellabarkley-attention-deficithyperactivitydisorderahandbookfordiagnosisandtreatment-theguilfordpress2014 http://www.filedropper.com/russellabarkley-attention-deficit... I don't care if you take it personally, you don't know math. https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml > Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. No matter how accurate the test diagnosis is there will still be false positives. Please go away, it's stubborn people like you who never go away that make this disorder so hard to take seriously. > Stimulants include both methylphenidate (MPH) and amphetamine (AMP) compounds. As a treatment for ADHD, the stimulants have decades of efficacy and safety data from hundreds of randomized controlled trials, beginning in the 1970s. Stimulant efficacy and safety data have expanded from an initial focus on school-age children with ADHD to encompass preschoolers, adolescents, and adults with ADHD. A more limited stimulant literature exists for females and ethnic minorities (Adler, 2009; Biederman & Spencer, 2008; Kratochvil, Greenhill, March, Burke, & Vaughan, 2004; Vaughan & Kratochvil, 2012).
    - fweespee_ch 11y ago
      http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/nearly-1-million-children-potentially-misdiagnosed-with-adhd/ http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/nearly-1-million-children-... > Elder said the “smoking gun” of the study is that ADHD diagnoses depend on a child’s age relative to classmates and the teacher’s perceptions of whether the child has symptoms. > Overall, the study found that about 20 percent – or 900,000 – of the 4.5 million children currently identified as having ADHD likely have been misdiagnosed. https://news.ncsu.edu/2010/08/wmsmorrilladhd/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2010/08/wmsmorrilladhd/ > Morrill explains that the study shows that children born just after the kindergarten cutoff date were 25 percent less likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD than children born just before the cutoff date. “This indicates that there are children who are diagnosed (or not) because of something other than underlying biological or medical reasons. That isn't okay. You can't be wrong 20-25% of the time and handing out drugs. > No matter how accurate the test diagnosis is there will still be false positives. Please go away, it's stubborn people like you who never go away that make this disorder so hard to take seriously. The fact you insist it is okay to prescription medication to 4-7 year olds with a 20-25% error rate is the problem here. > I don't care if you take it personally, you don't know math. The fact 1 in 5 times the ADHD diagnosis is wrong is the problem here.
      - eruditely 11y ago
        God dude you have no idea about what you're saying. LOOK AT THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. DO YOU SEE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE FALSE POSITIVE RATE? At this point you respond in bad faith and are demonstrably clueless. No matter how good a diagnostic test is there will always be false positives and this applies to ____every____ diagnosis. It's the relational structure of diagnosis itself. Stop responding please. You're clueless. STOP LINKING TO NEWS ARTICLES. I've linked you to the reference literature. edit: I read your link a few times. Where the hell is the smoking gun? I said previously use Barkley's ecological EF deficits rating scale
        fweespee_ch 11y ago
        > God dude you have no idea about what you're saying. LOOK AT THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. DO YOU SEE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE FALSE POSITIVE RATE? At this point you respond in bad faith and are demonstrably clueless. https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/events/2015/AISB2015/proceedings/mentalIllness/Petrolini.pdf https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/events/2015/AISB2015/proceedings/m... > Despite these potential problems with classification, general medicine seems to fare much better than psychiatry in terms of accuracy and reliability. The high rates of misdiagnosis and disagreement among psychiatrists support this point: for example, Kirk, Gomory & Cohen (2013) cite a recent estimate according to which the diagnostic error rate is 38% for ADHD http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/22/Suppl_2/ii21.long http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/22/Suppl_2/ii21.long > Arthur Elstein, a cognitive psychologist interested in ‘how doctors think’, studied clinical decision making for his entire career and concluded the diagnosis is wrong 10–15% of the time.7 A diverse range of research approaches that have focused on this issue over the past several decades suggest that this estimate is very much on target.6 You keep insisting higher than average error rates are okay and worthy of medication. I'm saying they aren't. We don't agree yet you keep responding and calling me names. K. > Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. You make statements like this which are demonstrably false and insist I'm the one acting in bad faith. 1) It isn't that rare. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html#us http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html#us > Approximately 11% of children 4-17 years of age (6.4 million) have been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011. 2) The test isn't 99% accurate. Multiple people with PHDs publish literature stating the error rate is higher than that. You repeatedly insist this one source is more reliable than any other. Great. I don't agree. 3) You insisting a high rate of diagnostic error compared to general medicine being "okay" is not going to magical change my mind.

eruditely 11y ago

They're still behind in effective brain development no matter what. When they're in high school, say 14 years old 14-4.2= 9.8, so they're 9.8 on avg in exec functioning. It isn't the same thing. But yes, wait a medium amount.

fweespee_ch 11y ago
> They're still behind in effective brain development no matter what. The whole point of the article is they were "finding" 20-100% of the younger members of the same grade level had ADHD. ADHD shouldn't be detected at 20-100% higher rates at 6 instead of 7 at the same grade level if the process was working correctly. That isn't okay. Period. Maybe I take this a bit personally because I have a friend who had all 3 kids who were misdiagnosed at 7-8 and at 8-9 they were told they were "normal" and to stop medication. ADHD doesn't magically cure itself in a year.
- eruditely 11y ago
  Look at the extensive literature regarding children at this. http://www.filedropper.com/russellabarkley-attention-deficithyperactivitydisorderahandbookfordiagnosisandtreatment-theguilfordpress2014 http://www.filedropper.com/russellabarkley-attention-deficit... I don't care if you take it personally, you don't know math. https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml > Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. No matter how accurate the test diagnosis is there will still be false positives. Please go away, it's stubborn people like you who never go away that make this disorder so hard to take seriously. > Stimulants include both methylphenidate (MPH) and amphetamine (AMP) compounds. As a treatment for ADHD, the stimulants have decades of efficacy and safety data from hundreds of randomized controlled trials, beginning in the 1970s. Stimulant efficacy and safety data have expanded from an initial focus on school-age children with ADHD to encompass preschoolers, adolescents, and adults with ADHD. A more limited stimulant literature exists for females and ethnic minorities (Adler, 2009; Biederman & Spencer, 2008; Kratochvil, Greenhill, March, Burke, & Vaughan, 2004; Vaughan & Kratochvil, 2012).
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/nearly-1-million-children-potentially-misdiagnosed-with-adhd/ http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/nearly-1-million-children-... > Elder said the “smoking gun” of the study is that ADHD diagnoses depend on a child’s age relative to classmates and the teacher’s perceptions of whether the child has symptoms. > Overall, the study found that about 20 percent – or 900,000 – of the 4.5 million children currently identified as having ADHD likely have been misdiagnosed. https://news.ncsu.edu/2010/08/wmsmorrilladhd/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2010/08/wmsmorrilladhd/ > Morrill explains that the study shows that children born just after the kindergarten cutoff date were 25 percent less likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD than children born just before the cutoff date. “This indicates that there are children who are diagnosed (or not) because of something other than underlying biological or medical reasons. That isn't okay. You can't be wrong 20-25% of the time and handing out drugs. > No matter how accurate the test diagnosis is there will still be false positives. Please go away, it's stubborn people like you who never go away that make this disorder so hard to take seriously. The fact you insist it is okay to prescription medication to 4-7 year olds with a 20-25% error rate is the problem here. > I don't care if you take it personally, you don't know math. The fact 1 in 5 times the ADHD diagnosis is wrong is the problem here.
    - eruditely 11y ago
      God dude you have no idea about what you're saying. LOOK AT THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. DO YOU SEE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE FALSE POSITIVE RATE? At this point you respond in bad faith and are demonstrably clueless. No matter how good a diagnostic test is there will always be false positives and this applies to ____every____ diagnosis. It's the relational structure of diagnosis itself. Stop responding please. You're clueless. STOP LINKING TO NEWS ARTICLES. I've linked you to the reference literature. edit: I read your link a few times. Where the hell is the smoking gun? I said previously use Barkley's ecological EF deficits rating scale
      - fweespee_ch 11y ago
        > God dude you have no idea about what you're saying. LOOK AT THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. DO YOU SEE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE FALSE POSITIVE RATE? At this point you respond in bad faith and are demonstrably clueless. https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/events/2015/AISB2015/proceedings/mentalIllness/Petrolini.pdf https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/events/2015/AISB2015/proceedings/m... > Despite these potential problems with classification, general medicine seems to fare much better than psychiatry in terms of accuracy and reliability. The high rates of misdiagnosis and disagreement among psychiatrists support this point: for example, Kirk, Gomory & Cohen (2013) cite a recent estimate according to which the diagnostic error rate is 38% for ADHD http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/22/Suppl_2/ii21.long http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/22/Suppl_2/ii21.long > Arthur Elstein, a cognitive psychologist interested in ‘how doctors think’, studied clinical decision making for his entire career and concluded the diagnosis is wrong 10–15% of the time.7 A diverse range of research approaches that have focused on this issue over the past several decades suggest that this estimate is very much on target.6 You keep insisting higher than average error rates are okay and worthy of medication. I'm saying they aren't. We don't agree yet you keep responding and calling me names. K. > Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. You make statements like this which are demonstrably false and insist I'm the one acting in bad faith. 1) It isn't that rare. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html#us http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html#us > Approximately 11% of children 4-17 years of age (6.4 million) have been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011. 2) The test isn't 99% accurate. Multiple people with PHDs publish literature stating the error rate is higher than that. You repeatedly insist this one source is more reliable than any other. Great. I don't agree. 3) You insisting a high rate of diagnostic error compared to general medicine being "okay" is not going to magical change my mind.