Cognition in anxious children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a comparison with clinical and normal children.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognition in children with anxiety disorders (ANX) and comorbid Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD) has received little attention, potentially impacting clinical and academic interventions in this highly disabled group. This study examined several cognitive features relative to children with either pure condition and to normal controls. METHODS: One hundred and eight children ages 8-12 and parents were diagnosed by semi-structured parent interview and teacher report as having: ANX (any anxiety disorder except OCD or PTSD; n = 52), ADHD (n = 21), or ANX + ADHD (n = 35). All completed measures of academic ability, emotional perception, and working memory. Clinical subjects were compared to 35 normal controls from local schools. RESULTS: Groups did not differ significantly on age, gender, or estimated IQ. On analyses of variance, groups differed on academic functioning (Wide Range Achievement Test, p < .001), perception of emotion (auditory perception of anger, p < .05), and working memory (backwards digits, p < .01; backwards finger windows, p < .05; Chipasat task, p < .001). ANX + ADHD and children with ADHD did poorly relative to controls on all differentiating measures except auditory perception of anger, where ANX + ADHD showed less sensitivity than children with ANX or with ADHD. CONCLUSION: Though requiring replication, findings suggest that ANX + ADHD relates to greater cognitive and academic vulnerability than ANX, but may relate to reduced perception of anger.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it