Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad: Ritmo Circanual en el Mes de Nacimiento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the existence of circanual rhythm in the month of birth in participants with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and analyzed the association between months of birth and ADHD. We analyzed 10,978 participants (1,778 ADHD/9,200 non-ADHD), aged 3 to 18 years. A consecutive sample of first visits to mental health between 1992 and 2021 is used. Participants with ADHD exhibit a significant circannual rhythm in the months of birth, with an acrophase in October. Being born in the last quarter of the year significantly increases the probability of being diagnosed with ADHD, controlling for the effect of sex and age. As the months of the year go by, there is a significant increasing linear trend of being diagnosed with ADHD, which is not observed neither in general population \nnor in cases without ADHD. Caution is necessary in diagnosis and treatment of children born in the last months of year, who, due to their greater \nimmaturity compared to the other children in class, could be misdiagnosed and treated as ADHD.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".