Risk factors for the difficulties in general activities across the day in Chinese children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the factors significantly associated with the difficulties of general activities during specific time periods across the day in Chinese children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: A cross-sectional study assessing the validity and reliability of Questionnaire-Children with Difficulties (QCD) for difficulties of general activities during specific time periods of the day in 200 Chinese children and adolescents with ADHD was the data source for this post-hoc analysis. Multivariate linear regression analyses were conducted to identify the factors significantly associated with the total and subscale scores of QCD respectively. Results: ADHD subtype of inattention (vs combination subtype, coefficient 3.69, P =0.006), parent–child interaction activity (vs no parent–child activity, coefficient 4.30, P =0.002), and any psychiatric comorbidities (vs no mental comorbidities, coefficient -3.68, P =0.010) were independently and significantly associated with the total score of QCD (higher score indicating less difficulties, and vice-versa). These three factors and the other two factors, including mother’s education and parenting style, were independently and significantly associated with at least one subscale score of QCD for the five time domains across the day. Conclusion: The overall difficulties of the general activities across the day in ADHD patients could be independently affected by ADHD subtype, psychiatric comorbidities, and parent–children interaction activity. However, the factors significantly associated with the difficulties of the general activities during specific time periods of the day in ADHD patients were slightly different. Keywords: attention-deficit, hyperactivity disorder, Questionnaire-Children with Difficulties QCD, general activities, risk factor
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".