Distinct Cognitive and Neuroimaging Profiles in Later-Life Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly being recognized in adults and older adults. Some of its behavioral features (e.g., distractibility, forgetfulness, impulsivity) may resemble those of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which contributes to diagnostic uncertainty in later life. The present study aimed to systematically compare ADHD and MCI on measures of cognition and structural neuroimaging to clarify the extent of their overlap (i.e., cognitive features of ADHD that are most likely to be taken for signs of MCI) and identify potential features unique to each disorder (i.e., that may be used to guide diagnostic impressions). Methods: One hundred and six adults aged 50 years or above were recruited from a Cognitive Neurology clinic (40 ADHD, 29 MCI and 37 controls) completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. A subsample (n=80) underwent structural neuroimaging.Results: Memory was impaired in both patient groups, but reflected a storage deficit in MCI (supported by imaging findings of reduced hippocampal volumes) and an encoding deficit in ADHD (supported by frontal-lobe cortical thinning). Both groups performed normally on executive measures. Semantic retrieval was uniquely impaired in MCI.Conclusions: Behavioral and structural imaging features strongly suggest that ADHD and MCI are similar manifestations of separate pathophysiological processes. Although ADHD has been proposed as a risk factor or prodromal stage of neurodegeneration, we propose it is rather acting as a phenotypic mimic of MCI via overlap in memory and executive performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".