Psychotic disorders comorbid with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: an important knowledge gap.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychotic disorders (PDs) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are frequently comorbid. Clinicians are often reticent to treat ADHD in patients with psychosis, fearing that psychostimulants will worsen psychotic symptoms. Advances in neurobiology have challenged the simplistic dichotomy where PD is considered a disorder of high dopamine (DA), treated by DA antagonists, and ADHD a disorder of low DA, treated by DA agonists. In our paper, we review the literature on comorbid ADHD and psychosis. Treating ADHD with psychostimulants may be considered in patients with PD who have been stabilized with antipsychotics (APs). Not treating ADHD may have consequences because ADHD may predispose patients to drug abuse, which further increases the risk of PD. Nevertheless, more systematic studies are needed as there remains some uncertainty on the combined use of APs and psychostimulants in comorbid PD and 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".