Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring of parents with depression and bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Offspring of parents with major mood disorders (MDDs) are at increased risk for early psychopathology. We aim to compare the rates of neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring of parents with bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and controls. METHOD: We established a lifetime diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, communication disorders, intellectual disabilities, specific learning disorders, and motor disorders] using the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, Present and Lifetime Version in 400 participants (mean age 11.3 + s.d. 3.9 years), including 93 offspring of parents with bipolar disorder, 182 offspring of parents with major depressive disorder, and 125 control offspring of parents with no mood disorder. RESULTS: = 0.035) compared to controls. This difference was driven by the rates of ADHD, which were highest among offspring of parents with bipolar disorder (30.1%), intermediate in offspring of parents with major depressive disorder (24.2%), and lowest in controls (14.4%). There were no significant differences in frequencies of other neurodevelopmental disorders between the three groups. Chronic course of mood disorder in parents was associated with higher rates of any neurodevelopmental disorder and higher rates of ADHD in offspring. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest monitoring for ADHD and other neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring of parents with MDDs may be indicated to improve early diagnosis and treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".