(26) SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DESEASES AND ADHD: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Subjects with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suffer from inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Clinicians often assume that the specific difficulties of ADHD are bound to affect sexual behaviours, and favour risky sexual behaviors (RSBs), thereby increasing the frequency of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This review is intended to provide an up to date synthesis of the literature surrounding STDs in patients with ADHD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using Medline, PsychInfo and Embase databases, with STDs as the main outcome measure. Results 8 articles were included in the systematic review. Three studies showed significantly higher frequencies of STDs in ADHD populations and three did not show any significant difference with control. Two studies showed a signifiantly lower age at first STD contraction. Two studies showed that use of ADHD medication was related to a lower risk of subsequent STD. Conclusions This is the first systematic review of STDs in individuals with ADHD, suggesting that subjects with ADHD report more STDs than the general population. Some authors hypothesized that these results could be explained by impulsivity, hyperactivity and inattention of ADHD, but also emphasized the role of psychiatric comorbidities, especially substance use disorders. The results of this review lead us to recommend that psychiatrists treating ADHD make their patients aware of the risk of STDs and that better compliance with medication is a protective factor for STDs. Results are limited by the small number of existing studies as well as the heterogeneity of the outcome measures. Further studies are warranted to better evaluate the risk of contracting a STD in subjects with ADHD. Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".