The complex clinical and cognitive phenotype of adult patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid hoarding disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several studies consistently showed that patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have high rates of hoarding disorder (HD) comorbidity. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and cognitive features of adult ADHD patients with and without hoarding comorbidity according to a self-report measure, and a sample of healthy controls. METHODS: Fifty-seven consecutive adult outpatients with a primary diagnosis of ADHD with comorbid hoarding disorder (ADHD+HD), 57 matched ADHD patients without hoarding disorder comorbidity (ADHD-HD), and a control group of 47 healthy controls (HCs) were enrolled. All subjects undergone a comprehensive clinical assessment and a neurocognitive assessment focused on attention, memory, and executive functions. RESULTS: The ADHD groups differed on most of the clinical and cognitive measures compared to HCs. ADHD+HD patients showed similar ADHD symptoms but greater subjective impulsivity, mood and anxiety symptoms, and a greater functional impairment compared to ADHD-HD patients as well as greater attentional and executive functioning impairments. CONCLUSIONS: ADHD patients with comorbid hoarding disorder present a more complex clinical and neuropsychological phenotype correlated to a greater functional impairment compared to ADHD patients without this comorbidity. These results further highlight the relevance of assessing and treating hoarding behaviours in adults with 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".