Sex-differential patterns of neuropsychological functioning in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sex-differential prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) varies across the lifespan, but little is known about sex differences in executive functions in adults with ADHD. METHODS: We assessed 261 adults, aged 18-40 years, diagnosed with ADHD (170 males [assigned at birth], aged 25.81 ± 5.49; 91 females, aged 27.76 ± 5.42) and 308 neurotypical adults (176 males, aged 24.62 ± 5.14; 132 female, aged 25.37 ± 5.42) via psychiatric interviews to confirm ADHD and other psychiatric diagnoses. They were assessed by the Cambridge Neuropsychological Testing Automated Battery (CANTAB) on Reaction Time (arousal/processing speed), Rapid Visual Information Processing (sustained attention), Spatial Span (spatial memory), Spatial Working Memory, Intradimentional/Extradimensional Shift (set-shifting), and Stocking of Cambridge (spatial planning). The primary analyses were adjusted for age, full-scale IQ, and co-occurring psychiatric conditions. RESULTS: Adults with ADHD had various co-occurring psychiatric conditions without sex differences in ADHD-neurotypical differences. Both adult males and females with ADHD performed poorer in all CANTAB tasks than same-sex neurotypical adults. Significant sex-moderating effects were observed in neuropsychological performance, including greater ADHD-neurotypical differences in arousal for females than males and in location memory for spatial tasks in males than females. CONCLUSION: There were no sex-moderating effects in the presence of co-occurring psychiatric conditions in adult ADHD. However, there were sex-moderating effects on how ADHD related to neuropsychological functioning in adulthood. ADHD was associated with more challenges in arousal/processing speed in females and more challenges in strategy use or inhibition in spatial memory in males.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".