Attention-deficit disorder (attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder without hyperactivity): A neurobiologically and behaviorally distinct disorder from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (with hyperactivity)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have focused on the combined type and emphasized a core problem in response inhibition. It is proposed here that the core problem in the truly inattentive type of ADHD (not simply the subthreshold combined type) is in working memory. It is further proposed that laboratory measures, such as complex-span and dual-task dichotic listening tasks, can detect this. Children with the truly inattentive type of ADHD, rather than being distractible, may instead be easily bored, their problem being more in motivation (underarousal) than in inhibitory control. Much converging evidence points to a primary disturbance in the striatum (a frontal–striatal loop) in the combined type of ADHD. It is proposed here that the primary disturbance in truly inattentive-type ADHD (ADD) is in the cortex (a frontal–parietal loop). Finally, it is posited that these are not two different types of ADHD, but two different disorders with different cognitive and behavioral profiles, different patterns of comorbidities, different responses to medication, and different underlying neurobiologies. Preparation of this manuscript was supported by grants from NIDA (R01 DA19685-16A2) and the McDonnell Foundation (JSMF Grant 21002016). The author gratefully thanks Russ Barkley, Dante Cicchetti, Michael Posner, and Margaret Weiss for comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Of course, only the author bears responsibility for any errors in this paper.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".