MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412926336 · doi:10.1016/j.pmip.2025.100165

Negative social interactions on the relationship between ADD/ADHD and both anxious and depressive symptoms among Canadian adults

2025· article· en· W4412926336 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ross D. Connolly, Allyson Lamont, David Speed

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonalized Medicine in Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepressive symptomsPsychologyClinical psychologyAnxietyDepression (economics)PsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The primary goal of the present research was to examine whether the associations that negative social interactions (NSIs) demonstrate with both anxiety and depression varied between adults with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a Canadian sample. Method Data were obtained from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey–Mental Health ( N ≥ 16,354). Presence of NSIs, diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and experience of major depressive episodes (MDEs) were estimated in the self-report ADHD and non-ADHD groups. Results NSIs were positively associated with having GAD and experiencing an MDE. Self-reported ADHD was also positively associated with these diagnostic outcomes. Presence of self-reported ADHD did not significantly modify the associations between NSI and GAD or NSI and MDE. Conclusion The findings show that increased levels of NSIs are significant predictors of an increased risk of experiencing anxiety and depression, and that ADHD itself a corelate of anxiety and depression. However, the associations that NSIs demonstrate with anxiety and with depression do not significantly differ based on the presence or absence of an ADHD diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonalized Medicine in PsychiatrySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207