Emotional dysregulation and stimulant medication in adult ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotional dysregulation affects up to two-thirds of adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is increasingly seen as a core ADHD symptom that is clinically associated with greater functional impairment and psychiatric comorbidity. We sought to investigate emotional dysregulation in ADHD and explored its neural underpinnings. METHODS: We studied emotion induction and regulation in a clinical cohort of adult patients with ADHD before and after a stimulant challenge. We compared patients with age- and gender-matched healthy controls using behavioural, structural, and functional measures. We hypothesized that patients would demonstrate aberrant emotion processing compared with healthy controls, and sought to find whether this could be normalized by stimulant medication. RESULTS: Behaviourally, the ADHD group showed reduced emotion induction and regulation capacity. Brain imaging revealed abberant activation and deactivation patterns during emotion regulation, lower grey-matter volume in limbic and paralimbic areas, and greater grey-matter volume in visual and cerebellar areas, compared with healthy controls. The behavioural and functional deficits seen in emotion induction and regulation in the ADHD group were not normalized by stimulant medication. CONCLUSION: Patients with ADHD may have impaired emotion induction and emotion regulation capacity, but these deficits are not reversed by stimulant medication. These results have important clinical implications when assessing which aspects of emotional dysregulation are relevant for patients and if and how traditional ADHD pharmacotherapy affects emotion induction and emotion regulation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".