Are parents with bipolar disorder at higher risk of having offspring with ADHD? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The offspring of parents with bipolar disorder (BD) and with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have a higher risk of having the same condition. Both disorders also share psychopathological symptoms; however, little is known about their genetic overlap. To examine whether the offspring of parents with BD have a greater chance of being affected by ADHD, we conducted a systematic review. METHODS: From inception to August 12, 2024, we searched the PubMed, SciELO, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases. We included studies if they investigated the association of parental bipolar disorder with offspring outcomes and made a proper investigation of disorders using validated instruments based on the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria. Studies were excluded if: parents were under 18 years old or over 70; did not report original data; systematic reviews; in vitro studies; with an animal model; offspring older than 17 years of age or with any comorbid diagnosis with ADHD. To assess risk of bias, two authors independently used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. RESULTS: 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies reported that the offspring of parents with BD were at higher risk for ADHD. Particularly, in all case‒control studies, the risk of ADHD was higher in the case group than the control group. CONCLUSION: The current studies are yet heterogeneous and literature did not uncover the biological correlation of these disorders regarding genetic, biochemical, neuroimaging and neuropsychological aspects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".