Preschoolers Classified as Having Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): DSM-IV Symptom Endorsement Pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, 50 preschoolers were formally and independently classified using both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) and third edition-revised (DSM-III-R) criteria for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The sample consisted of 25 preschoolers classified as having ADHD and 25 typically developing preschoolers for comparison; the sample was matched on gender, age, and socioeconomic status. All 50 preschoolers were without neurologic or neurodevelopmental disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, or language delay. There were four key findings: first, of the 25 preschoolers with ADHD, DSM-IV classification was as follows: hyperactive-impulsivity type (68%), combined type (28%), and inattentive type (4%). Second, the DSM-IV profiles showed that several symptoms were either infrequently endorsed by parents, reflecting limited applicability to preschoolers with ADHD, or frequently endorsed by parents of typically developing preschoolers, thus reducing their diagnostic value. Third, of the 25 preschoolers classified as having ADHD using DSM-IV criteria, 16% would not have been classified as having ADHD using the DSM-III-R criteria. The DSM-IV criteria therefore appear to be more lenient than the DSM-III-R criteria for this age group. Fourth, two symptoms that were not included in the DSM-IV, but were part of the DSM-III-R, were found to have clinical value for differentiating preschoolers with ADHD from their typically developing peers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".