Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

God dude you have no idea about what you're saying. LOOK AT THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. DO YOU SEE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE FALSE POSITIVE RATE? At this point you respond in bad faith and are demonstrably clueless.

No matter how good a diagnostic test is there will always be false positives and this applies to ____every____ diagnosis. It's the relational structure of diagnosis itself.

Stop responding please. You're clueless. STOP LINKING TO NEWS ARTICLES.

I've linked you to the reference literature.

edit: I read your link a few times. Where the hell is the smoking gun? I said previously use Barkley's ecological EF deficits rating scale

You still failed to understand the bayes rule example. Look in the breast cancer example for bayes rule you retard. IT DOESN'T MATTER THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE % OF FALSE POSITIVEs. Stop using your shitty assessments go open Barkley's handbook and look at the literature. You keep struggling to understand that these odd studies are irrelevant. The literature concerning accurate adhd diagnosis is so extensive and has been beaten to death over and over again. Please just go search pubmed please.

WRITE OUT BAYES RULE AND MULTIPLY IT OUT.

>Arthur Elstein, a cognitive psychologist interested in ‘how doctors think’, studied clinical decision making for his entire career and concluded the diagnosis is wrong 10–15% of the time.7 A diverse range of research approaches that have focused on this issue over the past several decades suggest that this estimate is very much on target.6

Hahahahahhaaha. Again showing you don't get the bayes rule example. Look at the breast cancer example again even 99% will get a large percentage of false positives.(The base rate is so low). In psychiatry how do you expect to get it so high? Then again with Barkley(2012) we might just be able to.

Why don't you get it? For 4-5% of the population, even if the test is 99% accurate you will still get a large percentage of false positives no matter what.

I see you struggling so hard to keep up for failed point. You lack any familiarity of the subject matter. Again it's the relational structure of diagnosis itself. The mathematical structure of diagnosis/inference NO MATTER THE DISEASE.

"https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml

Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people.

If your test results come back positive, what are your chances that you actually have the disease?

Do you think it is approximately: (a) .99, (b) .90, (c) .10, or (d) .01?

Surprisingly, the answer is (d), less than 1 percent chance that you have the disease!

> Despite these potential problems with classification, general medicine seems to fare much better than psychiatry in terms of accuracy and reliability. The high rates of misdiagnosis and disagreement among psychiatrists support this point: for example, Kirk, Gomory & Cohen (2013) cite a recent estimate according to which the diagnostic error rate is 38% for ADHD

You're an idiot. Once again disease assessment is much easier to assess than psychiatric assessment. Considering active experimentation with it is easier? Can't you tell why psychiatric diagnosis is much more difficult? Disease vs Disorders(?). Are you seriously appealing this?

Answer it yourself, why would disease assessment be easier than psychiatric diagnosis. Say for a foot tumor or something.

> Approximately 11% of children 4-17 years of age (6.4 million) have been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011.

Let me explain this to you slowly. I was worried for a second you might be right, but good for me you are not.

4-5% is the base rate of the ADHD in population, the 11% is the false positive + true positive rate. It's always going to be a number like 11% you dolt, it's harder to get lower than that. Again you actually didn't get the bayes rule example! It's not possible to get the fundamental rate that much. Because of how the numbers multiply out.

God you're dense. REREAD THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. Add up the breast cancer false positive rate + true positive rate.

I am 100% correct, you actually didn't read the bayes rule example. Why aren't you getting it?

Why don't you get why the bayes rule part covers what you're saying? Are you unable to comprehend how it applies?

Keep struggling buddy. You're hurting people with your ignorance.

Really? You compared psychiatric diagnosis vs medical diagnosis? What don't I understand? The first thing you linked to was utterly worthless. You've just tried to speak with such a fundamental unfamiliarity with the subject matter, and citing these worthless articles about diagnosis of age while not understanding core principles related to the disorder(that it's a developmental disorder) anyways and then this lack of familiarity with the principles is hampering your conversational abilities.

The consequences of vs . The first situation is far more dire, and likely to cause life problems, the latter isn't, and not if they're economizing their decision making in regard to medicating teens. One is likely to repeat a grade, the other is not even going to be harmed much. The asymmetry of harm points to that our decision making .

You pointed to year of assessment for diagnosis crippling assessment of a developmental disorder but the intrinisic variance of the developmental disorder skews the assessment anyways, since they're on avg 30% behind their peers.

So of COURSE IT WOULD DO THAT BUT IT'S STILL IRRELEVANT. IF THEY"RE OLDER THEIR BRAIN GOT OLDER.

>There is an enormous literature on the attempt to estimate the prevalence of ADHD, using various research methodologies, in children in different geographical regions. We provide in this section an overview of this literature by reviewing meta-analyses as well as selected high-quality, individual studies on the prevalence of ADHD in children. First it is important to consider how cases are identified. Perhaps the most common method for estimating the prevalence of ADHD is to use a parent or teacher rating scale of the symptoms of the disorder, then survey large populations of children. In these studies, children who score above the DSM (or ICD) diagnostic threshold are considered to meet criteria for the disorder. An advantage to this approach is that data for large samples of children can be collected quickly. Because such an approach does not incorporate other important criteria relevant to a diagnosis, however, the prevalence figures it may yield are probably overestimates, if only because the approach does not invoke an impairment criterion. Such scales are useful in screening for disorder and suggesting an upper limit to prevalence, but alone they do not define the true prevalence of ADHD. Other studies use clinical interviews in addition to parent- and teacher-report measures. Although these studies are typically more difficult to conduct, they are able to more rigorously apply the full diagnostic criteria by assessing for functional impairment and interviewing respondents. Because DSM-5 criteria also require early onset of symptoms (before age 13), pervasiveness across settings, the exclusion of other disorders, and impairment in one or more major domains of life functioning, prevalence estimates produced by these studies are likely closer to the “true” prevalence of ADHD in the general population than are estimates produced by other methods. Several meta-analyses have tested how much diagnostic method (e.g., rating scale vs. clinical interview) influences prevalence estimates. Polanczyk and colleagues (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 102 studies and found that one of the best predictors of heterogeneity in prevalence estimates is whether the impairment criterion was included in the diagnostic decision. Other individual studies have shown that drastic changes in prevalence emerge depending on whether the presence of clinical impairment is required for a diagnosis. Wolraich, Hannah, Baumgaertel, and Feurer (1998) found a prevalence rate of 16.1% in a group of schoolchildren by using symptom count criteria, but the reported prevalence rate dropped to 6.8% when functional impairment was required for a diagnosis. Other authors found significant, albeit less pronounced, drops in prevalence estimates when functional impairment is required for diagnosis (Jensen et al., 1995; Simonoff et al., 1997). Clearly, assessing for functional impairment is an important step in producing accurate prevalence estimates. (Quoted from Barkley's 4th edition)

READ THE ITALICIZED PART. So AS I SAID THE ECOLOGICAL DEFICITS (FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENT) GETS THE RATING DOWN TO THE BASE RATE OF 4-5%. READ THE QUOTE. I WAS RIGHT. GET IT DOLT? IT WAS IN THE LIT REVIEW. Every thing I said was right.

Do you see why I kept saying ecological deficits? Why I kept saying read the reference literature I linked? You keep linking to baby's first study, but it's Barkley who the literature revolves around. For good reason.

I don't feel bad for the all-caps, because you are hurting people with your ignorance. So then it's warranted.

"We have demonstrated in this chapter that ADHD is a legitimate mental health disorder whose diagnostic criteria are based on a substantial body of empirical evidence from hundreds of scientific studies. The fact that debate will always exist concerning the precise criteria that should be used to diagnose the condition reflects not so much a mistaken view that ADHD is some vague or invalid condition or myth as an evolving consequence of the scientific process itself applied to ADHD as earlier findings are further tested and revised as a function of later findings that produce an increasingly refined and rigorous set of criteria for disorder recognition. The symptoms of ADHD cohere into two highly related dimensions of behavior, and those symptoms are substantiated by various studies employing objective measures that demonstrate that children with ADHD do, in fact, display more such behavior than do children without ADHD. While most cases of ADHD are evident by age 12, some continue to emerge thereafter, in part as a consequence of the unreliability of retrospective recall of symptom onset, and because of the creation of new cases of ADHD in the population as a result of the accrual of new cases of neurological injuries that may give rise to new cases of ADHD over time. The symptoms of ADHD, particularly the ADHD-HI dimension, decline with age but remain present across the life course (Barkley, 2011a) and support the view that it is a lifelong disorder. And while boys are significantly more likely to manifest ADHD than girls by an average ratio of 3:1, this sex difference declines by adulthood to a nearly equal representation in both sexes. ADHD is a universal condition found in all countries and cultures studied to date with relatively consistent prevalence." 4th Edition quote.

You know why you lost? Because you.................. tried to comment on something you were clueless about instead of assessing the evidence systematically.

I demand you concede verbally.

HN needs to get better at downvoting and flagging.