Childhood attention problems and socioeconomic status in adulthood: 18-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been associated with socioeconomic difficulties later in life. Little research in this area has been based on longitudinal and community studies. AIMS: To examine the relationship between childhood attention problems and socioeconomic status 18 years later. METHOD: Using a French community sample of 1103 youths followed from 1991 to 2009, we tested associations between childhood attention problems and socioeconomic status between ages 22 and 35 years, adjusting for potential childhood and family confounders. RESULTS: Individuals with high levels of childhood attention problems were three times more likely to experience subsequent socioeconomic disadvantage than those with low levels of attention problems (odds ratio 3.44, 95% CI 1.72-6.92). This association remained statistically significant even after adjusting for childhood externalising problems, low family income, parental divorce and parental alcohol problems. CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal community-based study shows an association between childhood attention problems and socioeconomic disadvantage in adulthood. Taking into account ADHD and associated difficulties could help reduce the long-term socioeconomic burden of 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".