Early identification of children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signs and symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are present at preschool ages and often not identified for early intervention. We aimed to use machine learning to detect ADHD early among kindergarten-aged children using population-level administrative health data and a childhood developmental vulnerability surveillance tool: Early Development Instrument (EDI). The study cohort consists of 23,494 children born in Alberta, Canada, who attended kindergarten in 2016 without a diagnosis of ADHD. In a four-year follow-up period, 1,680 children were later identified with ADHD using case definition. We trained and tested machine learning models to predict ADHD prospectively. The best-performing model using administrative and EDI data could reliably predict ADHD and achieved an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.811 during cross-validation. Key predictive factors included EDI subdomain scores, sex, and socioeconomic status. Our findings suggest that machine learning algorithms that use population-level surveillance data could be a valuable tool for early identification 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it