A Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study in Children With ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, OCD, and Matched Controls: Distinct and Non-Distinct White Matter Disruption and Dimensional Brain-Behavior Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], autism spectrum disorder [ASD], and obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD]) share genetic vulnerability and symptom domains. The authors present direct comparison of structural brain circuitry in children and adolescents with NDDs and control subjects and examine brain circuit-behavior relationships across NDDs using dimensional measures related to each disorder. METHOD: Diffusion imaging and behavioral measures were acquired in 200 children and adolescents (ADHD: N=31; OCD: N=36; ASD: N=71; controls: N=62; mean age range: 10.3-12.6 years). Following Tract-Based Spatial Statistics, multigroup comparison of white matter indices was conducted, followed by pairwise comparisons. Relationships of fractional anisotropy with dimensional measures of inattention, social deficits, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and general adaptive functioning were conducted across the NDD sample. RESULTS: Lower fractional anisotropy within the splenium of the corpus callosum was found in each NDD group, compared with the control group. Lower fractional anisotropy in additional white matter tracts was found in the ASD and ADHD groups, compared with the control group, but not in the OCD group. Fractional anisotropy was lower in the ASD and ADHD groups compared with the OCD group but was not different in ADHD participants compared with ASD participants. A positive relation between fractional anisotropy (across much of the brain) and general adaptive functioning across NDDs was shown. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified disruption in interhemispheric circuitry (i.e., fractional anisotropy alterations in the corpus callosum) as a shared feature of ASD, ADHD, and OCD. However, fractional anisotropy alterations may be more widespread and severe in ASD and ADHD than in OCD. Higher fractional anisotropy throughout the brain appears to be related to better adaptive function across NDDs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".