MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076155630 · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.22.2.217

Visual search performance in children rated as good or poor attenders: The differential impact of DAT1 genotype, IQ, and chronological age.

2008· article· en· W2076155630 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Cornish, J. M. Wilding, Chris Hollis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust
KeywordsVigilance (psychology)ConfoundingPsychologyCognitionAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderTraitVisual searchEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceIntelligence quotientDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyAudiologyPsychiatryCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by poor attention to detail, poor attention maintenance, and variability throughout task performance. The authors used a quantitative trait loci approach to assess the association between the dopamine transporter (DAT1) high-risk genotype, cognitive performance (visual search and vigilance), and ADHD symptoms in a community sample of boys 6-11 years of age. The potential confounding effects of IQ and chronological age were also investigated. Results demonstrate that accuracy in target detection, not speed, distinguishes poor attenders from good attenders. The authors speculate that the measure of performance (e.g., time and false alarms) may be critical in detecting attentional weaknesses. In contrast, DAT1 gene, known to be associated with the behavioral symptoms of ADHD, was unrelated to visual search or vigilance performance, although it was related to ADHD symptoms.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207