Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder with and without Obsessive—Compulsive Behaviours: Clinical Characteristics, Cognitive Assessment, and Risk Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of obsessive--compulsive behaviours (OCB) in a clinical sample of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to compare ADHD children (with and without OCB) with respect to clinical and cognitive characteristics and risk factors. METHOD: We compared ADHD children (n = 134) with and without OCB, and we compared all ADHD children with a group of normal control subjects (n = 26) on various clinical, cognitive, and inhibitory control measures; neurobiological and psychosocial risk factors; and family histories of psychiatric illness. RESULTS: Clinically significant OCB was identified in 11.2% (15/134) of children with ADHD. Comorbid OCB was associated with significantly increased perfectionism, improved teacher ratings of inattention, and a decreased likelihood of having a first-degree relative with ADHD. Comorbid ADHD and OCB may also be associated with increased oppositional behaviour at home and better inhibitory control, though these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid OCB is common in clinically referred children with ADHD and is associated with increased impairment relative to ADHD alone. Further, children with ADHD and OCB may develop symptoms as the result of different genetic and environmental risk factors, compared with children with ADHD only.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".