Defining ADHD symptom persistence in adulthood: optimizing sensitivity and specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Longitudinal studies of children diagnosed with ADHD report widely ranging ADHD persistence rates in adulthood (5-75%). This study documents how information source (parent vs. self-report), method (rating scale vs. interview), and symptom threshold (DSM vs. norm-based) influence reported ADHD persistence rates in adulthood. METHOD: Five hundred seventy-nine children were diagnosed with DSM-IV ADHD-Combined Type at baseline (ages 7.0-9.9 years) 289 classmates served as a local normative comparison group (LNCG), 476 and 241 of whom respectively were evaluated in adulthood (Mean Age = 24.7). Parent and self-reports of symptoms and impairment on rating scales and structured interviews were used to investigate ADHD persistence in adulthood. RESULTS: Persistence rates were higher when using parent rather than self-reports, structured interviews rather than rating scales (for self-report but not parent report), and a norm-based (NB) threshold of 4 symptoms rather than DSM criteria. Receiver-Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses revealed that sensitivity and specificity were optimized by combining parent and self-reports on a rating scale and applying a NB threshold. CONCLUSION: The interview format optimizes young adult self-reporting when parent reports are not available. However, the combination of parent and self-reports from rating scales, using an 'or' rule and a NB threshold optimized the balance between sensitivity and specificity. With this definition, 60% of the ADHD group demonstrated symptom persistence and 41% met both symptom and impairment criteria in adulthood.
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 | 0.065 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".