Peer victimization and the association with hippocampal development and working memory in children with ADHD and typically-developing children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity and inattention displayed by children with ADHD put them at risk of experiencing peer victimization. Hippocampal maturation, may reduce a child's vulnerability to the experience of peer victimization, as it has been associated with decreased ADHD symptomatology. Working memory is an important executive function in the formation and maintenance of social relationships, which is often impaired in ADHD. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between problem behaviours, peer victimization, hippocampal morphology, and working memory in children with and without ADHD. 218 typically-developing participants (50.5% male) and 232 participants diagnosed with ADHD (77.6% male) were recruited. The ADHD group was subdivided into inattentive (ADHD-I) or combined (ADHD-C) types. The Child Behavior Checklist measured problem behaviours and peer victimization. Children underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Hippocampal subfield volumes were obtained using FreeSurfer. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-fifth edition measured working memory (WM). The ADHD-C group displayed significantly higher levels of problem behaviours and peer victimization (all, p < 0.001), compared to the other groups. Left Cornu Ammonis 3 (CA3) volume was a positive predictor of peer victimization (all, p < 0.013). Left CA3 volume was a positive predictor of WM and left Cornu Ammonis 4 (CA4) volume negatively predicted WM (all, p < 0.025). A cluster analysis revealed that children displaying symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity are the most at risk for peer victimization. Interventions focusing on minimizing peer victimization may aid in mitigating adverse downstream effects, and assist in promoting brain health and cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".