Longitudinal Cognitive Performance of Older Adults With ADHD Presenting to a Cognitive Neurology Clinic: A Case Series of Change Up to 21 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The neuropsychological features of older adults with ADHD are largely unknown. This retrospective chart review aims to elucidate their cognitive trajectories using a case series of six older adults with ADHD presenting with memory complaints to a cognitive neurology clinic, whom we argue are a particularly relevant group to study due to their potential to mimic neurodegenerative syndromes. Methods: Participants were included if they were age 40 or older at intake, had ADHD based on DSM-5 criteria, and had cognitive data collected prior to 2014 with follow-up at least 5 years later. Results: Five men and one woman were included ( M = 53.8 years at intake) and had an average of 135.0 months of follow-up data available. Despite notable between- and within-subject variability, cognition generally improved or remained stable across visits. Two participants experienced notable memory decline, but a global consideration of their performance in other domains suggests these deficits may be frontally-mediated. Conclusion: In this small sample, cognition remained generally unchanged across 5–21 years. Isolated impairments likely reflect substantial intra-individual variability across time and measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".