Psychiatric Comorbidities in Adolescents with Attention- Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Their Siblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite high psychiatric comorbidities in adolescents with clinical diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), little is known about psychiatric comorbidities in their siblings. We investigated the psychiatric comorbid conditions in adolescents with ADHD, their siblings, and healthy control subjects from their school. METHOD: The sample included 136 adolescent probands with ADHD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), diagnostic criteria; 136 siblings (47 affected and 89 unaffected) and 136 age- and sex-matched healthy school control subjects. All participants and their parents received the structured psychiatric interviews for current and lifetime DSM-IV psychiatric disorders of the participants. RESULTS: The rate of ADHD (34.6%) in the siblings of probands with ADHD was about 7 times higher than in the general population. Probands with ADHD were significantly more likely than unaffected siblings (OR 6.38; 95% CI 3.43 to 11.88) and healthy school control subjects (OR 9.60; 95% CI 5.31 to 17.34) to have a DSM-IV psychiatric disorder, including oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), tic disorders, major depressive disorder, specific phobia (more than control subjects only), nicotine use disorder, and sleep disorders. The affected siblings were significantly more likely than healthy school control subjects to have ODD, CD, specific phobia, and to have consumed alcohol (ORs ranging from 2.30 to 20.16). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that siblings of probands with ADHD have increased risks for ADHD and that the affected siblings have more psychiatric comorbidities than healthy school control subjects. It warrants early identification of ADHD symptoms and other psychiatric comorbid conditions as well in siblings of adolescents 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".