Cognitive disengagement syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: An examination of relationships with alexithymia and emotion regulation difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive disengagement syndrome (CDS) and ADHD are considered distinct but interrelated constructs. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of elevated CDS symptoms and increased ADHD risk in the general population, and their relationships with emotion regulation difficulty (ERD) and alexithymia. Out of 1166 participants, 142 with known psychiatric conditions were excluded, resulting in 1024 participants. Participants completed various scales including Adult ADHD Self-Report Screening Scale for DSM-5 (ASRS-5), Barkley Adult Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (SCT) Scale, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form (DERS-16), and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Four groups were formed based on Barkley and ASRS-5 scores: Group 1) No elevated CDS symptoms and Low risk of ADHD, Group 2) No elevated CDS symptoms and Increased risk of ADHD, Group 3) Elevated CDS symptoms and Low risk of ADHD, Group 4) Elevated CDS symptoms and Increased risk of ADHD. Elevated CDS symptoms was found in 10% of participants, and increased ADHD risk in 9.2%. Among probable ADHD cases, 40% had elevated CDS symptoms, while 60% of elevated CDS symptoms cases had increased ADHD risk. Group 4 (elevated CDS symptoms and increased risk of ADHD) had the highest ERD and alexithymia scores, while Group 1(no elevated CDS symptoms and low risk of ADHD) had the lowest. Regression analyses showed that CDS scores predicted ERD (47%) and alexithymia (32%) better than ADHD scores (ERD: 36%, alexithymia: 23%). CDS and ADHD appear as significant concepts that could be involved in the etiology of ERD and alexithymia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".