Cognitive and Familial Contributions to Conduct Disorder in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although young children with conduct disorder (CD) are suspected of having verbal and executive function deficits, most studies that investigated this hypothesis did not control for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Furthermore, relatively little is known about the interaction between cognitive deficits and familial factors in explaining the onset and persistence of CD in children. The participants in this study were 57 children with CD and 35 controls aged 7 to 12 years. At 1-year follow-up, 41 of the participants with CD were reassessed. Children with CD were found to be significantly impaired in four of five executive function measures after ADHD symptoms and socioeconomic status (SES) were controlled. Executive function test performance, number of ADHD symptoms, and familial characteristics (SES, parental punishment) together correctly classified 90% of the participants. Only the number of ADHD symptoms was found to significantly improve prediction of CD 1 year later beyond that afforded by number of CD symptoms a year earlier. Findings indicate that children with CD and ADHD symptoms are especially at risk for persistent antisocial behaviour. Results also highlight the importance of treatment programs that cover both cognitive and familial aspects associated with CD.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".