Comparison of brain volume abnormalities between ADHD and conduct disorder in adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of brain structure abnormalities in conduct disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) samples have been limited owing to cross-comorbidity, preventing clear understanding of which structural brain abnormalities might be specific to or shared by each disorder. To our knowledge, this study was the first direct comparison of grey and white matter volumes in diagnostically "pure" (i.e., no comorbidities) conduct disorder and ADHD samples. METHODS: Groups of adolescents with noncormobid conduct disorder and with noncomorbid, combined-subtype ADHD were compared with age- and sex-matched controls using DARTEL voxel-based analysis of T1-weighted brain structure images. Analysis of variance with post hoc analyses compared whole brain grey and white matter volumes among the groups. RESULTS: We included 24 adolescents in each study group. There was an overall 13% reduction in grey matter volume in adolescents with conduct disorder, reflecting numerous frontal, temporal, parietal and subcortical deficits. The same grey matter regions typically were not abnormal in those with ADHD. Deficits in frontal lobe regions previously identified in studies of patients with ADHD either were not detected, or group differences from controls were not as strong as those between the conduct disorder and control groups. White matter volume measurements did not differentiate conduct disorder and ADHD. LIMITATIONS: Our modest sample sizes prevented meaningful examination of individual features of ADHD or conduct disorder, such as aggression, callousness, or hyperactive versus inattentive symptom subtypes. CONCLUSION: The evidence supports theories of frontotemporal abnormalities in adolescents with conduct disorder, but raises questions about the prominence of frontal lobe and striatal structural abnormalities in those with noncomorbid, combined-subtype ADHD. The latter point is clinically important, given the widely held belief that ADHD is associated with numerous frontal lobe structural deficits, a conclusion that is not strongly supported following direct comparison of diagnostically pure groups. The results are important for future etiological studies, particularly those seeking to identify how early expression of specific brain structure abnormalities could potentiate the risk for antisocial behaviour.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".