The Term Comorbidity Is of Questionable Value in Reference to Developmental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, there has been an enormous increase in the number of studies evaluating the overlap of developmental syndromes or disorders in both children and adults. This overlap of symptoms is often referred to as comorbidity, a term we criticize in this article because of its unsubstantiated presumption of independent etiologies. The premise of this article is that discrete categories do not exist in real life, and that it is misleading to refer to overlapping categories or symptoms as "comorbidities." We illustrate our point by presenting data from 179 school-age children evaluated with rigorous research criteria for seven disorders: reading disability (RD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental coordination disorder (DCD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), depression, and anxiety. Fully 50% of this sample met the criteria for at least two diagnoses. The children with ADHD were at higher risk of having at least a second disorder compared to the children with RD. Overall, the high rates of overlap of these behavioral, emotional, and educational deficits in this broadly ascertained sample support the idea that the concept of comorbidity is inadequate. We discuss the concept of atypical brain development as an explanatory idea to interpret the high rate of overlap of developmental disorders.
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 | 0.025 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".