Childhood hyperactivity-inattention symptoms and risk behaviors in young adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) are associated with Risk Behaviors (RB) such as substance-related problems, suicidal behaviors and sex risk behaviors. However, some issues remain controversials: is ADHD an independent risk factor for RB? Is CD a confounding factor of the relationship between ADHD and RB? Aim To assess the link between childhood hyperactivity-inattention symptoms and subsequent RB, controlling for other risk factors among which conduct disorder symptoms. Methods We have conducted multivariate analyses from a French community-based sample (N = 1107) belonging to the youth GAZEL cohort. The sample was first assessed at ages 4 to 18, and then assessed 8 years later. Child psychopathology and RB patterns were evaluated through parent and adolescent self-reports. Results In males, results show an effect of hyperactivity-inattention symptoms on more severe RB such as regular cannabis use, illicit drug experimentation and suicidal behaviors (adjusted OR = 2 to 5, all Ps significants). In females, they show an effect of hyperactivity-inattention symptoms on regular tobacco use (adjusted OR = 2, P < .05). The risk of RB initiation was increased in youths with high levels of conduct disorder symptoms, particularly in combination with simultaneously high levels of hyperactivity-inattention symptoms (adjusted OR = 2, P < .05). Conclusions This work enhances the knowledge of a link between disruptive behaviors in childhood and subsequent risk behaviors. It underscores the importance of a better acknowledgement of these disorders, in order to better identify and treat them to prevent negative long-term outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".