Network analysis of narrative discourse and attention-deficit hyperactivity symptoms in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research investigating language in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has demonstrated several deficits in many aspects. However, no previous study employed quantitative methodology providing objective measures that could be compared among different studies with diverse samples. To fill this gap, we used network analysis to investigate how ADHD symptomatology impacts narrative discourse, a complex linguistic task considered to be an ecological measure of language. Fifty-eight adults (34 females and 24 males) with a mean age of 26 years old and a mean of 17 years of educational level were administered the Adult Self-Rating Scale for ADHD symptomatology. They also completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory and the Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation Seeking Behavior Scale. Intelligence quotient was calculated. Individuals were asked to tell a story based on a wordless picture book. Speech was recorded and transcribed as an input to SpeechGraphs software. Parameters were total number of words (TNW), number of loops of one node (L1), repeated edges (RE), largest strongly connected component (LSC) and average shortest path (ASP). Verbosity was controlled. Statistical analysis was corrected for multiples comparisons and partial correlations were performed for confounding variables. After controlling for anxiety, depression, IQ, and impulsiveness ADHD symptomatology was positively correlated with L1 and negatively correlated with LSC. TNW was positively correlated with ADHD symptoms. In a subdomain analysis, both inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity were negatively correlated with LSC. Only hyperactivity-impulsivity positively correlated with TNW and L1. Results indicated a correlation between ADHD symptoms and lower connectedness in narrative discourse (as indicated by higher L1 and lower LSC), as well as higher total number of words (TNW). Our results suggest that the higher the number of ADHD symptoms, the less connectivity among words, and a higher number of words in narrative discourse.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".