Inhibition of Motor Responses in Siblings Concordant and Discordant for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine whether nonaffected siblings of ADHD probands have a motor response inhibition deficit and to assess concordance for this inhibition deficit in ADHD-concordant and ADHD-discordant sibling pairs. METHOD: ADHD-concordant pairs (21 probands and their affected siblings), ADHD-discordant pairs (18 probands and their nonaffected siblings), and a group of unrelated, demographically balanced, healthy individuals (N=24) were compared on measures of response inhibition, ADHD behavior, impairment, and environmental risk. RESULTS: Concordant-pair probands, their affected siblings, and discordant-pair probands exhibited inhibitory control impairment relative to healthy comparison subjects. The performance of nonaffected siblings was intermediate between that of ADHD children and the healthy comparison subjects. Group differences persisted after age was controlled, and performance was not correlated with the number of ADHD symptoms. In ADHD-concordant sibling pairs, there was a significant relationship between proband and sibling inhibition deficit. In ADHD-discordant sibling pairs, inhibition deficit was evident in half of the nonaffected siblings of probands with an inhibition deficit. Groups did not differ in exposure to environmental risks. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired inhibitory control aggregates in the family members of individuals with ADHD and may serve as an indicator of genetic vulnerability to the disorder.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".