Phenotypic and genetic associations between reading comprehension, decoding skills, and <scp>ADHD</scp> dimensions: evidence from two population‐based studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phenotypic and genetic associations between decoding skills and ADHD dimensions have been documented but less is known about the association with reading comprehension. The aim of the study is to document the phenotypic and genetic associations between reading comprehension and ADHD dimensions of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity in early schooling and compare them to those with decoding skills. METHODS: Data were collected in two population-based samples of twins (Quebec Newborn Twin Study - QNTS) and singletons (Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development - QLSCD) totaling ≈ 2300 children. Reading was assessed with normed measures in second or third grade. Teachers assessed ADHD dimensions in kindergarten and first grade. RESULTS: Both decoding and reading comprehension were correlated with ADHD dimensions in a similar way: associations with inattention remained after controlling for the other ADHD dimension, behavior disorder symptoms and nonverbal abilities, whereas associations with hyperactivity/impulsivity did not. Genetic modeling showed that decoding and comprehension largely shared the same genetic etiology at this age and that their associations with inattention were mostly explained by shared genetic influences. CONCLUSION: Both reading comprehension and decoding are uniquely associated with inattention through a shared genetic etiology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".