ODD, ADHD, Versus ODD+ADHD in Clinic and Community Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To seek evidence for the validity of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) as a behavioral syndrome in adults. METHOD: Two samples of adults, mental health outpatient clinic referrals (N = 490) and community controls (N = 900), completed a Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders-referenced rating scale and a brief questionnaire (social, educational, occupational, and treatment variables). Participants were separated into four groups: ODD-only, ADHD-only, ODD+ADHD, and NONE. RESULTS: In general, the three symptom groups were more severe than the NONE group; the ODD+ADHD and NONE groups were the most and least severe, respectively; and there were clear differences between the ODD-only and ADHD-only groups. The pattern of group differences was generally similar in both samples. CONCLUSION: Findings support the distinction between ADHD and ODD symptom presentations in adults, and the notion that the comorbid condition is a unique clinical entity, both of which are consistent with the child literature. Nevertheless, additional research with larger samples of patients will be necessary to establish ODD as a potential behavioral syndrome in adults.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".