Additive Neurocognitive Deficits in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Depressive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the possible additive neurocognitive deficits in adults with both attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and serious depressive symptoms. Participants were 54 university students who completed a psycho-educational assessment. Three groups were examined: a group with comorbid ADHD and elevated depressive symptoms (ADHD + DEP; N = 18); a group with ADHD only (N = 18); and a group with elevated depressive symptoms only (DEP; N = 18). Group differences were examined on a battery of neurocognitive tests. The ADHD + DEP group performed significantly worse than the other groups on processing speed tasks and delayed recall of conceptual verbal information and significantly worse than the ADHD group on shifting tasks. Depressive symptom severity was significantly correlated with processing speed, verbal memory performance, and shifting in the ADHD and ADHD + DEP groups. Results suggest that the co-occurrence of ADHD and depressive symptoms in adults is associated with additional neurocognitive impairment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".