HEALTH OUTCOMES AND RISK FOR MORTALITY IN OLDER ADULTS WITH ATTENTION DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER SYMPTOMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that persists into older adulthood with important implications for healthy ageing. Previous research documents significant disparities for children and adolescents with ADHD compared to their neurotypical peers on various social determinants of health. Critically, previous research reports a significantly higher risk for mortality in adults with ADHD followed since childhood. The literature on health outcomes of older adults with ADHD is sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to examine social determinants of health and risk for mortality associated with ADHD symptoms in a sample of older adults. Participants from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (n= 986) were screened for childhood and current ADHD symptoms in 2008/2009 and followed until death or most recent assessment (August, 2021). Based on symptoms reported currently and evidence of childhood onset, participants were assigned to either an ADHD symptom (ADHD-sx) group (n= 147) or a non-ADHD group (n= 839). Survival analysis revealed no significant risk for mortality associated with ADHD-sx (HR:.90, 95% CI [.63, 1.29], p=.58). Furthermore, although older adults with ADHD-sx reported more chronic health conditions (p <.001), group differences were not observed in terms of income (p=.49), education (p=.95), social participation (p=.63) or occupational attainment (p=.94). These results suggest that selection and survival bias are important considerations when studying older adults with neurodevelopmental disorders. Future directions for research on ADHD in healthy ageing are presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".