6 ms·

Your hypothesis is contracted by mountains of high quality scientific evidence. ADHD is a well-defined condition and there is an accepted way of diagnosing some

by ttul 1y ago

Your hypothesis is contracted by mountains of high quality scientific evidence. ADHD is a well-defined condition and there is an accepted way of diagnosing someone with it that effectively divides those with the condition from those without it. Stimulant medications may help many people to feel and be more productive, but that does not imply that people who meet the criteria for ADHD do not represent an identifiable group. I highly encourage you to browse the Consensus Statement on ADHD, referenced below. It’s a compilation of 202 facts about ADHD, accepted by a global consensus of experts on ADHD. Faraone, S. V., Banaschewski, T., Coghill, D., Zheng, Y., Biederman, J., Bellgrove, M. A., Newcorn, J. H., Gignac, M., Al Saud, N. M., Manor, I., Rohde, L. A., Yang, L., Cortese, S., Almagor, D., Stein, M. A., Albatti, T. H., Aljoudi, H. F., Alqahtani, M. M. J., Asherson, P., … Wang, Y. (2021). The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 evidence‑based conclusions about the disorder. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 128, 789–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022

thisislife2 1y ago
> "high quality scientific evidence" Mostly, unfortunately, funded by Pharmaceutical companies - ADHD Nation: Children, Doctors, Big Pharma, and the Making of an American Epidemic ( https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-Nation-Children-American-Epidemic/dp/1501105914 https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-Nation-Children-American-Epidemi... ): > More than 1 in 7 American children get diagnosed with ADHD—three times what experts have said is appropriate—meaning that millions of kids are misdiagnosed and taking medications such as Adderall or Concerta for a psychiatric condition they probably do not have. The numbers rise every year. And still, many experts and drug companies deny any cause for concern. In fact, they say that adults and the rest of the world should embrace ADHD and that its medications will transform their lives.
- astrange 1y ago
  Properly designed preregistered studies are credible even if they're funded by people you don't like. All medication in the US is approved by studies funded by the company that applies to be able to sell it. Who else would be motivated to study them?
homefree 1y ago
The diagnosis criteria in that consensus is pretty weak imo and part of the subjectivity I’m talking about. They claim there are observable differences, but none of these alone can be used for diagnosis. > The diagnosis of ADHD has been criticized as being subjective because it is not based on a biological test. This criticism is unfounded. ADHD meets standard criteria for validity of a mental disorder established by Robins and Guze (Faraone, 2005; 1970). The disorder is considered valid because: 1) well-trained professionals in a variety of settings and cultures agree on its presence or absence using well-defined criteria and 2) the diagnosis is useful for predicting a) additional problems the patient may have (e.g., difficulties learning in school); b) future patient outcomes (e.g., risk for future drug abuse); c) response to treatment (e.g., medications and psychological treatments); and d) features that indicate a consistent set of causes for the disorder (e.g., findings from genetics or brain imaging) I don’t find this very persuasive and it’s a problem in the field generally.
andoando 1y ago
Which part of the disgnosis do you find objective measures? There isnt a single scientific one Take a look at studying looking at the consensus on diagnosis. Even among psychatrists the same patient gets diagnosed with different things.
- bruce343434 1y ago
  QbTest [https://www.qbtech.com/adhd-tests/qbtest/ https://www.qbtech.com/adhd-tests/qbtest/] It measures your ability to focus your attention quite objectively and there's statistically significant differences between neurotypical and adhd performance. This test was used during my own diagnosis.
  - andoando 1y ago
    There is no doubt some differences in people who experienced mental problems, and sought or were given a diagnosis, and the general population. QbTest was retroactively designed specifically to target this subjectively diagnosed ADHD group. This may be evidence that an ADHD diagnosis does differentiate populations based on some criteria, but it says nothing to this differentiation being caused by a singular disorder/pathology I'd like to see a study of this test done on other comorbidities. I found this for example which finds a weak relation in these tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38317541/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38317541/ differentiating between ADHD and depression, anxiety, OCD. Here is another study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37800347/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37800347/ >Conclusions: When used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis. I'll also point out few things: 1. Attention/focus is not a simple single metric one can measure and varies entirely on the task/situation at hand. That is a computerized test with no actual risk/reward to a person is not a predictor of attention/focus in general life. Focus/attention is driven largely by the feelings, rewards, risks, outcomes someone sees, those with diagnosed ADHD are already entering this study with an entirely different mental perception/attitude. 2. There is inherent bias present in ADHD patients in they may intentionally fudge their performance to meet their diagnosis. Unlike most disorders, people actually seek an ADHD diagnosis for access to stimulants, and its incredibly easy to understand how to mimic that behavior for these tests. 3. Other computerized tests have existed aiding in diagnosis, so this becomes circular.

by ttul 1y ago

thisislife2 1y ago

> "high quality scientific evidence" Mostly, unfortunately, funded by Pharmaceutical companies - ADHD Nation: Children, Doctors, Big Pharma, and the Making of an American Epidemic ( https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-Nation-Children-American-Epidemic/dp/1501105914 https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-Nation-Children-American-Epidemi... ): > More than 1 in 7 American children get diagnosed with ADHD—three times what experts have said is appropriate—meaning that millions of kids are misdiagnosed and taking medications such as Adderall or Concerta for a psychiatric condition they probably do not have. The numbers rise every year. And still, many experts and drug companies deny any cause for concern. In fact, they say that adults and the rest of the world should embrace ADHD and that its medications will transform their lives.

astrange 1y ago
Properly designed preregistered studies are credible even if they're funded by people you don't like. All medication in the US is approved by studies funded by the company that applies to be able to sell it. Who else would be motivated to study them?

homefree 1y ago

The diagnosis criteria in that consensus is pretty weak imo and part of the subjectivity I’m talking about. They claim there are observable differences, but none of these alone can be used for diagnosis. > The diagnosis of ADHD has been criticized as being subjective because it is not based on a biological test. This criticism is unfounded. ADHD meets standard criteria for validity of a mental disorder established by Robins and Guze (Faraone, 2005; 1970). The disorder is considered valid because: 1) well-trained professionals in a variety of settings and cultures agree on its presence or absence using well-defined criteria and 2) the diagnosis is useful for predicting a) additional problems the patient may have (e.g., difficulties learning in school); b) future patient outcomes (e.g., risk for future drug abuse); c) response to treatment (e.g., medications and psychological treatments); and d) features that indicate a consistent set of causes for the disorder (e.g., findings from genetics or brain imaging) I don’t find this very persuasive and it’s a problem in the field generally.

andoando 1y ago

Which part of the disgnosis do you find objective measures? There isnt a single scientific one Take a look at studying looking at the consensus on diagnosis. Even among psychatrists the same patient gets diagnosed with different things.

bruce343434 1y ago
QbTest [https://www.qbtech.com/adhd-tests/qbtest/ https://www.qbtech.com/adhd-tests/qbtest/] It measures your ability to focus your attention quite objectively and there's statistically significant differences between neurotypical and adhd performance. This test was used during my own diagnosis.
- andoando 1y ago
  There is no doubt some differences in people who experienced mental problems, and sought or were given a diagnosis, and the general population. QbTest was retroactively designed specifically to target this subjectively diagnosed ADHD group. This may be evidence that an ADHD diagnosis does differentiate populations based on some criteria, but it says nothing to this differentiation being caused by a singular disorder/pathology I'd like to see a study of this test done on other comorbidities. I found this for example which finds a weak relation in these tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38317541/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38317541/ differentiating between ADHD and depression, anxiety, OCD. Here is another study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37800347/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37800347/ >Conclusions: When used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis. I'll also point out few things: 1. Attention/focus is not a simple single metric one can measure and varies entirely on the task/situation at hand. That is a computerized test with no actual risk/reward to a person is not a predictor of attention/focus in general life. Focus/attention is driven largely by the feelings, rewards, risks, outcomes someone sees, those with diagnosed ADHD are already entering this study with an entirely different mental perception/attitude. 2. There is inherent bias present in ADHD patients in they may intentionally fudge their performance to meet their diagnosis. Unlike most disorders, people actually seek an ADHD diagnosis for access to stimulants, and its incredibly easy to understand how to mimic that behavior for these tests. 3. Other computerized tests have existed aiding in diagnosis, so this becomes circular.