Brain Imaging of the Cortex in ADHD: A Coordinated Analysis of Large-Scale Clinical and Population-Based Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neuroimaging studies show structural alterations of various brain regions in children and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), although nonreplications are frequent. The authors sought to identify cortical characteristics related to ADHD using large-scale studies. METHODS: Cortical thickness and surface area (based on the Desikan-Killiany atlas) were compared between case subjects with ADHD (N=2,246) and control subjects (N=1,934) for children, adolescents, and adults separately in ENIGMA-ADHD, a consortium of 36 centers. To assess familial effects on cortical measures, case subjects, unaffected siblings, and control subjects in the NeuroIMAGE study (N=506) were compared. Associations of the attention scale from the Child Behavior Checklist with cortical measures were determined in a pediatric population sample (Generation-R, N=2,707). RESULTS: In the ENIGMA-ADHD sample, lower surface area values were found in children with ADHD, mainly in frontal, cingulate, and temporal regions; the largest significant effect was for total surface area (Cohen's d=-0.21). Fusiform gyrus and temporal pole cortical thickness was also lower in children with ADHD. Neither surface area nor thickness differences were found in the adolescent or adult groups. Familial effects were seen for surface area in several regions. In an overlapping set of regions, surface area, but not thickness, was associated with attention problems in the Generation-R sample. CONCLUSIONS: Subtle differences in cortical surface area are widespread in children but not adolescents and adults with ADHD, confirming involvement of the frontal cortex and highlighting regions deserving further attention. Notably, the alterations behave like endophenotypes in families and are linked to ADHD symptoms in the population, extending evidence that ADHD behaves as a continuous trait in the population. Future longitudinal studies should clarify individual lifespan trajectories that lead to nonsignificant findings in adolescent and adult groups despite the presence of an ADHD diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".