MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Late-Onset ADHD Reconsidered With Comprehensive Repeated Assessments Between Ages 10 and 25

2017· article· en· W2765395469 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychiatryAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderAge of onsetPsychologyStimulantCohortClinical psychologyConduct disorderYoung adultComorbidityPediatricsMedicineDiseaseDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Adolescents and young adults without childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often present to clinics seeking stimulant medication for late-onset ADHD symptoms. Recent birth-cohort studies support the notion of late-onset ADHD, but these investigations are limited by relying on screening instruments to assess ADHD, not considering alternative causes of symptoms, or failing to obtain complete psychiatric histories. The authors address these limitations by examining psychiatric assessments administered longitudinally to the local normative comparison group of the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. METHOD: Individuals without childhood ADHD (N=239) were administered eight assessments from comparison baseline (mean age=9.89 years) to young adulthood (mean age=24.40 years). Diagnostic procedures utilized parent, teacher, and self-reports of ADHD symptoms, impairment, substance use, and other mental disorders, with consideration of symptom context and timing. RESULTS: Approximately 95% of individuals who initially screened positive on symptom checklists were excluded from late-onset ADHD diagnosis. Among individuals with impairing late-onset ADHD symptoms, the most common reason for diagnostic exclusion was symptoms or impairment occurring exclusively in the context of heavy substance use. Most late-onset cases displayed onset in adolescence and an adolescence-limited presentation. There was no evidence for adult-onset ADHD independent of a complex psychiatric history. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals seeking treatment for late-onset ADHD may be valid cases; however, more commonly, symptoms represent nonimpairing cognitive fluctuations, a comorbid disorder, or the cognitive effects of substance use. False positive late-onset ADHD cases are common without careful assessment. Clinicians should carefully assess impairment, psychiatric history, and substance use before treating potential late-onset cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it