“Dysregulated not deficit”: A qualitative study on symptomatology of ADHD in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common condition that often persists into adulthood, although data suggest that the current diagnostic criteria may not represent how the condition presents in adults. We aimed to use qualitative methods to better understand ADHD symptomatology in young adults, especially regarding attentional and emotional dysregulation. METHODS: Nine focus groups involving young adults (aged 18-35 years; N = 43; 84% female; 86% US and Canada) with diagnoses of ADHD were conducted. Participants were asked about their perceptions of the current diagnostic criteria and how their symptoms have presented and changed over time. Data were analyzed using an interpretive phenomenological analysis framework. RESULTS: Most participants reported that the diagnostic criteria did not accurately capture their experiences with ADHD. They reported struggling with attention dysregulation, including hyperfocusing, and emotional dysregulation, including rejection-sensitive dysphoria. Many participants believed that their changing environments and behavioral adaptations influenced how their symptoms presented into adulthood. CONCLUSION: Current diagnostic criteria for ADHD may not capture the range of symptoms present in young adults. More research is needed to characterize attentional and emotional dysregulation in this population.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".