Similarities and differences of neuropsychological functions, metacognitive abilities and resilience in Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome (CDS) and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was aimed to evaluate the relationships between neuropsychological functions, self-reported metacognitive abilities, and resilience levels among children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and those with Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome (CDS) compared to healthy controls. This cross-sectional, case-control study was consisted of 36 children with CDS only, 36 with ADHD only, 33 with CDS and ADHD and 39 control children were enrolled for a total sample of 144 children. The intellectual and neuropsychological functioning of the participating children was evaluated using the WISC-IV. Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Children(MAI-C), Emotional Resilience Scale(ERS), and Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale(RCADS) were used. In both Processing Speed Index (PSI) and Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), children with CDS had significantly lower scores compared to those with ADHD, while those with ADHD and ADHD + CDS were similar to each other and controls. Children with CDS had greater metacognitive awareness than those with ADHD only and those with ADHD + CDS, whereas controls had the greatest level of metacognitive awareness. The emotional sensitivity of children with CDS was similar to that of children with ADHD + CDS and significantly greater than that of children with ADHD and controls, while control children had the lowest levels. The results of this study suggest that metacognitive abilities and emotional resilience may be targeted in rehabilitation/therapy of children with CDS ± ADHD and that interventions targeting processing speed and perceptual reasoning in younger children with CDS symptoms may be beneficial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".