Polygenic Risk and the Course of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder From Childhood to Young Adulthood: Findings From a Nationally Representative Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand whether genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with the course of the disorder across childhood and into young adulthood. METHOD: Participants were from the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study, a population-based birth cohort of 2,232 twins. ADHD was assessed at ages 5, 7, 10, and 12 with mother- and teacher-reports and at age 18 with self-report. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were created using a genome-wide association study of ADHD case status. Associations with PRS were examined at multiple points in childhood and longitudinally from early childhood to adolescence. We investigated ADHD PRS and course to young adulthood, as reflected by ADHD remission, persistence, and late onset. RESULTS: Participants with higher ADHD PRSs had increased risk for meeting ADHD diagnostic criteria (odds ratios ranging from 1.17 at age 10 to 1.54 at age 12) and for elevated symptoms at ages 5, 7, 10, and 12. Higher PRS was longitudinally associated with more hyperactivity/impulsivity (incidence rate ratio = 1.18) and inattention (incidence rate ratio = 1.14) from age 5 to age 12. In young adulthood, participants with persistent ADHD exhibited the highest PRS (mean PRS = 0.37), followed by participants with remission (mean PRS = 0.21); both groups had higher PRS than controls (mean PRS = -0.03), but did not significantly differ from one another. Participants with late-onset ADHD did not show elevated PRS for ADHD, depression, alcohol dependence, or marijuana use disorder. CONCLUSION: Genetic risk scores derived from case-control genome-wide association studies may have relevance not only for incidence of mental health disorders, but also for understanding the longitudinal course of mental health disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".