Genetic and phenotypic evidence of the predictive validity of preschool parent reports of hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To determine the validity of parent reports (PRs) of ADHD in preschoolers, we assessed hyperactivity/impulsivity (HI) and inattention (IN) in 1114 twins with PRs at 1.5, 2.5, 4, 5, 14, 15, and 17 years, and teacher-reports at 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12. We examined if preschool PRs (1) predict high HI/IN trajectories, and (2) capture genetic contributions to HI/IN into adolescence. Group-based trajectory analyses identified three 6–17 years trajectories for both HI and IN, including small groups with high HI (N = 88, 10.4%, 77% boys) and IN (N = 158, 17.3%, 75% boys). Controlling for sex, each unit of HI PRs starting at 1.5 years and at 4 years for IN, increased more than 2-fold the risk of belonging to the high trajectory, with incremental contributions (Odds Ratios = 2.5–4.5) at subsequent ages. Quantitative genetic analyses showed that genetic contributions underlying preschool PRs accounted for up to a quarter and a third of the heritability of later HI and IN, respectively. Genes underlying 1.5-year HI and 4-year IN contributed to 6 of 8 later HI and IN time-points and largely explained the corresponding phenotypic correlations. Results provide phenotypic and genetic evidence that preschool parent reports of HI and IN are valid means to predict developmental risk of ADHD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".