Candidate genes and neuropsychological phenotypes in children with ADHD: review of association studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".