Association between relative age at school and persistence of ADHD in prospective studies: an individual participant data meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The youngest children in a school class are more likely than the oldest to be diagnosed with ADHD, but this relative age effect is less frequent in older than in younger school-grade children. However, no study has explored the association between relative age and the persistence of ADHD diagnosis at older ages. We aimed to quantify the association between relative age and persistence of ADHD at older ages. Methods For this meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubPsych up to April 1, 2022, with terms related to "cohort" and "ADHD" with no date, publication type, or language restrictions. We gathered individual participant data from prospective cohorts that included at least ten children identified with ADHD before age 10 years. ADHD was defined by either a clinical diagnosis or symptoms exceeding clinical cutoffs. Relative age was recorded as the month of birth in relation to the school-entry cutoff date. Study authors were invited to share raw data or to apply a script to analyse data locally and generate anonymised results. Our outcome was ADHD status at a diagnostic reassessment, conducted at least 4 years after the initial assessment and after age 10 years. No information on sex, gender, or ethnicity was collected. We did a two-stage random-effects individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the association of relative age with persistence of ADHD at follow-up. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020212650. Findings Of 33 119 studies generated by our search, we identified 130 eligible unique studies and were able to gather individual participant data from 57 prospective studies following up 6504 children with ADHD. After exclusion of 16 studies in regions with a flexible school entry system that did not allow confident linkage of birthdate to relative age, the primary analysis included 41 studies in 15 countries following up 4708 children for a period of 4 to 33 years. We found that younger relative age was not statistically significantly associated with ADHD persistence at follow-up (odds ratio 1·02, 95% CI 0·99–1·06; p=0·19). We observed statistically significant heterogeneity in our model (Q=75·82, p=0·0011, I 2 =45%). Participant-level sensitivity analyses showed similar results in cohorts with a robust relative age effect at baseline and when restricting to cohorts involving children with a clinical diagnosis of ADHD or with a follow-up duration of more than 10 years. Interpretation The diagnosis of ADHD in younger children in a class is no more likely to be disconfirmed over time than that of older children in the class. One interpretation is that the relative age effect decreases the likelihood of children of older relative age receiving a diagnosis of ADHD, and another is that assigning a diagnostic label of ADHD leads to unexplored carryover effects of the initial diagnosis that persist over time. Future studies should be conducted to explore these interpretations further. Funding None.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".