Dissociating Attention Deficits in Children with ADHD and Congenital Hypothyroidism using Multiple CPTs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that children with different etiologies of attention disorder also differ as to the types of errors they make on attention tasks. Because these errors are reflective of the core deficits underlying their attention problems, we sought to compare error patterns in children with different attention disorders. Studied were 144 children aged 7-12 years, 43 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 35 with congenital hypothyroidism (CH), and 68 controls. Two variations of the continuous performance task (CPT) that differed in demands on inhibitory control and memory were used. One variation, the CPT:A-not-X task, required subjects to observe a continuous stream of letters shown at different rates on the computer screen and respond to all stimuli except "X". The other variation, the CPT:AX task, required them to respond whenever a specified combination of letter such as "A" followed by "X" appeared on the screen. On the CPT:A-not-X task, children with ADHD differed from controls in commission errors, signifying difficulty with inhibitory control, whereas children with CH differed in perceptual sensitivity or signal detection. Although the CH and ADHD groups both performed more poorly than controls on the CPT:AX task, children with CH made more errors to the first stimulus item, suggesting a problem holding information in memory, whereas children with ADHD made more errors to the second item, suggesting impulsivity. These results therefore signify the utility of these tasks in identifying the different mechanisms underlying the specific attention deficits of different groups of children.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".