Hippocampus and amygdala morphology in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood is a serious health problem with a prevalence of up to 4%. Limbic structures have been implicated in the genesis of ADHD; it has been suggested that they mediate mood and cognitive disturbances in affected individuals. Recently, a large study involving children and adolescents with ADHD reported bilateral enlargement of the hippocampus and indirect evidence of amygdala volume loss in this patient sample. We sought to test the hypothesis that, like in pediatric patients, there might be hippocampus and amygdala volume abnormalities in adult patients with ADHD. METHODS: We studied 27 adult patients with ADHD and 27 group-matched healthy volunteers using a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging scanner. We manually obtained morphometric measurements of the regions mentioned. RESULTS: In contrast to previous findings in children and adolescents, we found no significant differences in hippocampus and amygdala volumes among adults with and without the disorder. CONCLUSION: Findings of hippocampus enlargement and amygdala volume loss are not very stable across different samples of patients with ADHD. Contradictory findings may be related to the different locations of alterations along the complex circuits responsible for the different symptoms of ADHD. Further studies involving larger samples of adult patients with ADHD and using multimodal designs are needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".