MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060679850 · doi:10.1177/1087054708323040

The Impact of Childhood ADHD on Dropping Out of High School in Urban Adolescents/ Young Adults

2008· article· en· W2060679850 on OpenAlexaff
Joey W. Trampush, Carlin J. Miller, Jeffrey H. Newcorn, Jeffrey M. Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Attention Disorders · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologySchool dropoutPsychosocialSocioeconomic statusDropout (neural networks)Developmental psychologyCognitionClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine cognitive and psychosocial factors associated with high school dropout in urban adolescents with and without childhood ADHD. METHOD: In a longitudinal study, 49 adolescents/young adults with childhood ADHD and 44 controls who either dropped out or graduated from high school are included. Risk factors examined as potential correlates of dropout were intelligence, reading skills, socioeconomic status, marijuana use, and paternal contact. RESULTS: Lower IQ, reading ability, socioeconomic status, frequent marijuana use, and limited paternal contact significantly differentiated dropouts from graduates, irrespective of childhood ADHD. Follow-up analyses determined that IQ, marijuana use, and paternal contact independently contribute to the likelihood of dropout. CONCLUSION: Selected cognitive and psychosocial factors appear independently associated with the likelihood of high school dropout irrespective of ADHD. Notably, childhood ADHD did not increase this risk, suggesting that previous reports of increased dropout because of ADHD may become negated in urban areas when matched with similar community controls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Attention DisordersSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207