Dopamine genes and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the results of genetic studies investigating dopamine-related genes in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). DATA SOURCES: Papers (association/linkage, meta-analyses and animal model studies) were identified through searches of the PubMed database and systematically reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Consistent results from molecular genetic studies are pointing strongly to the possible link between 2 specific genes, the dopamine transporter (SLC3A6) and the dopamine receptor 4 (DRD4), and ADHD. CONCLUSIONS: The implication of SLC6A3 and DRD4 genes in ADHD appears to be one of the most replicated in psychiatric genetics and strongly suggests the involvement of the brain dopamine systems in the pathogenesis of ADHD. However, more work is required to further these findings by genotype-to-phenotype correlations and identify the functional allelic variants/mutations that are responsible for these associations. The role of other dopamine genes, which may have smaller effects than SLC6A3 and DRD4, needs also to be determined.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".