A Systematic Review of Global Publication Trends Regarding Long-Term Outcomes of ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increased global recognition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a serious medical condition with long-term consequences. Although originally conceived of as a childhood disorder, ADHD is being increasingly recognized in adults. Individual geographic regions may have specific interests and objectives for the study of ADHD. A systematic review of long-term outcomes (LTOs) in ADHD was conducted to evaluate research on ADHD LTOs on a global scale. Studies that were at least 2 years in duration were examined. A total of 351 studies were identified in the final analysis. We identified nine outcomes of interest and classified studies by specific geographical regions, age groups studied and study design by region and over time. Published studies of LTOs in ADHD have increased in all geographical regions over the past three decades, with a peak number of 42 publications in 2008. This rise in publications on ADHD LTOs may reflect a rise in global interest and recognition of consequences and impairment associated with ADHD. Although many world regions have published on ADHD LTOs, the majority of studies have emerged from the US and Canada, followed by Europe. While investigators in the US and Canada were predominantly interested in drug addiction as a LTO, European researchers were more interested in antisocial behavior, and Eastern Asian investigators focused on both of these LTOs as well as self-esteem. Geographical differences in the focus of ADHD LTO studies may reflect regional variations in cultural values. Proportionally fewer prospective longitudinal studies and proportionally more retrospective and cross-sectional studies have been published in more recent decades. Finally, more studies focusing on ADHD in adolescents and adults have been conducted in recent years, and particularly adolescents in Eastern Asia. These changes in basic study design may reflect an increase in the recognition that ADHD is a lifetime chronic disorder. This systematic review analysis of publication trends in ADHD LTOs reflects geographically based interests that change over time.
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 | 0.023 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".