Mental Health in Adults With ADHD: Examining the Relationship With Cardiorespiratory Fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The mental health of adults with ADHD was compared to neurotypical controls, and associations between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mental health were examined. Method: Seventy-two participants ( n = 36 with ADHD) completed demographic questions assessing ADHD and mental health symptoms. CRF was estimated using the 6-Minute Walk Test and a self-perception question. Results: Those with ADHD had significantly poorer mental health outcomes than controls ( p < .001), with 50% of adults with ADHD reporting severe to extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety, or stress. Critically, lower CRF was associated with worse depression, anxiety, and stress (all p ≤ .03) across both groups. Within the ADHD group, those with higher estimated CRF had significantly lower stress. Among participants with less severe ADHD symptoms, those with higher perceived CRF had significantly lower depressive symptoms. Conclusion: In our cross-sectional study, participants with ADHD had poorer mental health than neurotypical controls, and higher fitness was associated with better mental health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".