Do ASD and ADHD Have Distinct Executive Function Deficits? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Comparison Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if children and adolescents with a diagnosis of ASD or ADHD have distinct executive function (EF) profiles. METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles comparing ASD, ADHD, and typically developing individuals under 19 years of age were identified. The domains evaluated were: working memory, response inhibition, planning, cognitive flexibility, attention, processing speed, and visuospatial abilities. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles met inclusion criteria. Analyses were performed on 45 performance metrics from 24 individual tasks. No differences in EF were found between individuals diagnosed with ASD and ADHD. Individuals diagnosed with ASD and ADHD exhibited worse performance in attention, flexibility, visuospatial abilities, working memory, processing speed, and response inhibition than typically developing individuals. Groups did not differ in planning abilities. CONCLUSION: Children and adolescents with ASD and ADHD have similar EF profiles. Further research is needed to determine if comorbidity accounts for the commonality in executive dysfunction between each disorder.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it