Exploring the neural mechanisms that underlie motor difficulties in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioural disorder of childhood. Motor performance appears to be impaired for an important sub-set of this population. OBJECTIVES: This structured review draws attention to the neurological mechanisms that could potentially explain these difficulties. METHODS: In August 2010, Medline, PsychINFO and Embase databases were searched with keywords related to ADHD, neuroimaging modalities and motor performance. RESULTS: Four studies were retrieved that examined both motor performance and possible neural substrates. Each study explored different hypotheses and no common conclusion is emerging. The cortical activation dysregulation hypothesis, the cerebellar dysfunction hypothesis and the delayed white matter maturation hypothesis were proposed, applying combinations of motor observations and neuroimaging findings. CONCLUSION: Published literature to date is insufficient to confirm specific hypotheses. Additional studies coupling discrete motor evaluations to neuroimaging techniques are needed in children with ADHD to better understand the neurobiological mechanisms of their motor difficulties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".