Prevalence and Correlates of Self-Reported ADD/ADHD in a Large National Sample of Canadian Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and correlates of self-reported attention deficit disorder (ADD)/ADHD in Canadian adults. METHOD: Prevalence of self-reported ADD/ADHD was examined in a large national sample of Canadians ( n = 16,957). Demographic variables, lifetime, and current psychiatric comorbidities were then compared in a group of adults with self-reported ADD/ADHD ( n = 488) and an age- and gender-matched control group ( n = 488). RESULTS: The prevalence of self-reported ADD/ADHD was 2.9%. Significantly higher lifetime and current prevalence rates of major depressive disorder, bipolar I and II disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance use disorders were observed in the ADD/ADHD group compared with the control group. Within the ADD/ADHD group, lifetime and 12-month prevalence rates of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder were significantly higher in women, whereas lifetime and current rates of some substance use disorders were significantly higher in men. CONCLUSION: In a national sample of Canadian adults, self-reported ADD/ADHD was associated with significant psychiatric comorbidity. Gender differences were also noted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it