A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences on Delay of Gratification and Temporal Discounting Tasks in ADHD and Typically Developing Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) tend to prefer smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards compared to Typically Developing (TD) individuals. Currently it is unknown if males and females with ADHD differ in their preferences for delayed rewards, although females and males with ADHD appear to manifest differences in symptoms as well as in other cognitive and emotional domains. We used meta-analytic methods to examine gender differences on delay of gratification and temporal discounting tasks in both TD and ADHD samples. There were no differences between TD males and TD females, but males with ADHD were more likely to choose the larger delayed rewards than females with ADHD. These findings indicate a dissimilar pattern of gender differences for those with ADHD compared with TD samples. Implications of our findings are also discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".