MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113922748 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0913

Candidate genes and neuropsychological phenotypes in children with ADHD: review of association studies

2009· review· en· W2113922748 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Oussama Kébir, Karim Tabbane, Sarojini M. Sengupta, Ridha Joober

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveImpulsivityNeuropsychologyEndophenotypePsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderCognitionAlleleCandidate geneGenetic associationClinical psychologyGenotypeGeneticsPsychiatryGeneBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We reviewed systematically the results of genetic studies investigating associations between putative susceptibility genes for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and neuropsychological traits relevant for this disorder. METHODS: We identified papers for review through the PubMed database. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies examined 10 genes (DRD4, DAT1, COMT, DBH, MAOA, DRD5, ADRA2A, GRIN2A, BDNF and TPH2) in relation to neuropsychological traits relevant for ADHD. For DRD4, the continuous performance test (CPT) and derived tasks were the most used tests. Association of high reaction time variability with the 7-repeat allele absence appears to be the most consistent result and seems to be specific to ADHD. Speed of processing, set-shifting and cognitive impulsiveness were less frequently investigated but seem to be altered in the 7-repeat allele carriers. No effect of genotype was found on response inhibition (the stop and go/no-go tasks). For DAT1, 4 studies provide conflicting results in relation to omission and commission errors from CPT and derived tasks. High reaction time variability seems to be the most replicated cognitive marker associated with the 10-repeat homozygosity. The other genes have attracted fewer studies, and the reported findings need to be replicated. LIMITATIONS: Although we aimed to perform a formal meta-analysis, this was not possible because the number of studies using the same neurocognitive endophenotypes was limited. We referred only minimally to the various theoretical frameworks in this field of research; more detail would have been beyond the scope of our systematic review. Finally, sample sizes in most of the studies we reviewed were small. Thus, some negative findings could be attributed to a lack of statistical power, and positive results should be considered preliminary until they are replicated in extended samples. CONCLUSION: Several methodological issues, including measurement errors, developmental changes in cognitive abilities, sex, psychostimulant effects and presence of comorbid conditions, represent confounding factors and may explain conflicting results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations98
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207