Heterotypic trajectories of dimensional psychopathology across the lifespan: the case of youth‐onset attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated the existence of a distinct late-onset attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) trajectory. Our objective is to test if there are distinct ADHD trajectories regarding age of onset from childhood to adolescence and to compare clinical manifestations, cognitive functions and genetic risk for ADHD among distinct longitudinal groups. METHOD: Nine hundred and twenty four children and adolescents from the community participated in the study. We compared clinical, cognitive features and genetic risk among four groups of participants: (a) childhood-limited, (b) youth-onset, (c) childhood-onset with youth persistence, and (d) community comparisons without ADHD. Symptomatic and diagnostic assessments were performed using the Development and Well-Being Behavior Assessment, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and the Child Behavior Checklist. Cognitive functions were measured using a battery of standardized tests. Genetic risk for ADHD was calculating using summary statistics from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. RESULTS: Half of the adolescents (52%) with ADHD had their symptom onset in adolescence. The impairment level of this group in adolescence is similar to the persistent group. Despite not having ADHD, the youth-onset group already presented in childhood more symptoms from other domains of psychopathology, higher shared variance in psychiatric symptomatology (p-factor), school impairment, and executive dysfunctions than community comparisons. Furthermore, the youth-onset group presented lower levels of genetic risk for ADHD compared to other cases. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of adolescents with ADHD were youth-onset cases and presented similar impairment levels as those cases with early-onset ADHD. The presence of cognitive impairments and higher levels of clinical symptoms in the youth-onset group already at childhood speaks in favor of a heterotypic trajectory of psychopathology suggesting that youth-onset ADHD might be an artificial consequence of categorizing dimensional psychopathology into discrete diagnostic groups.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".