Provider FAQ

An investigational ADHD screening aid is a decision-support tool still completing formal validation studies. It gives clinicians structured, objective data — such as reaction-time measures and symptom ratings — to inform a screening decision, but its norms and thresholds are not yet validated and it must never be used as a standalone diagnostic measure.

"Investigational" is a regulatory status, not a hedge: it means outputs are labeled as pending validation, use is supervised by a qualified clinician, and the validation plan (norming, equivalence, calibration studies) is documented before clinical claims are made.

No. Tabula Attentiva is a screening and decision-support aid. ADHD is diagnosed clinically under DSM-5-TR, using symptom history across settings, evidence of functional impairment, and rule-out of other causes. The platform gives the clinician objective markers and a triage signal; a qualified clinician makes every diagnostic decision.

A session combines brief objective attention tasks with structured self-report and developmental history. The core objective markers are reaction-time variability and the ex-Gaussian lapse tail (tau) — the most replicated objective ADHD signals — normed to the person's exact age, alongside built-in performance- and symptom-validity checks.

Month-precise age norming also corrects the relative-age effect: the youngest children in a school class are referred and diagnosed more often than the oldest, an artifact the platform explicitly counteracts.

Each screening session draws its questionnaire from a bank of psychometrically matched item phrasings, so no two administrations present an identical, memorizable script. The constructs, response scale, and scoring stay the same; only the surface wording rotates. This protects the instrument against coaching and practice effects while keeping scores comparable.

Item selection is deterministic per session, so an interrupted session resumes with exactly the same form. Adapted phrasings are flagged on the provider report until per-variant equivalence studies are complete.

Embedded validity checks are indicators woven into the tasks and questionnaires that flag when results should not be taken at face value — for example implausible symptom endorsement, inconsistent responding, or response patterns faster than perception allows. A flag prompts caution and clinical follow-up; it is never treated as evidence of intent.

Fatigue, anxiety, low literacy, or misunderstood instructions can produce the same patterns, so flagged sessions are reported as "interpret with caution" or "uninterpretable" — never as a judgment about the person.

Primary-care teams can use the platform to structure the first step of an ADHD work-up: a standardized session, objective markers, validity screening, and a plain-language summary help decide who needs watchful waiting, a structured interview, or specialist referral. It supplements — never replaces — clinical judgment and collateral history.

No. Tabula Attentiva is investigational and is not FDA cleared. Its norms and screening thresholds are placeholders pending formal validation and equivalence studies, which is stated on every report. Pilot use is limited to decision support under a qualified clinician's supervision, not standalone clinical measurement.

Clinical sessions run against a dedicated backend with role-based access, application-layer encryption of identifying fields at rest, an append-only audit trail of every record access, and strict transport security. The public demo is separate and non-clinical: it stores nothing server-side unless a provider explicitly connects their own backend.

See the privacy notice for details on data handling and the methodology page for the scoring architecture.