Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30064848›Full record

ArticleBiological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging2019

Classification Accuracy of Neuroimaging Biomarkers in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Effects of Sample Size and Circular Analysis.

Alfredo A Pulini, Wesley T Kerr, Sandra K Loo, Agatha Lenartowicz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Virtual reality (bio-)markers differentiate ADHD from depression and controls.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alfredo A PuliniParis Descartes University, Paris, France.
Wesley T KerrDepartment of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles; Department of Biomathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles; Department of Internal Medicine, Eisenhower Medical Center, Rancho Mirage, California.
Sandra K LooDepartment of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Agatha LenartowiczDepartment of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Electronic address: alenarto@g.ucla.edu.

Funding

UCLA-Caltech Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM008042 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI AJIJOLA, OLUJIMI A, DAWSON, DAVID WAYNE · 1985 to 2023
$29.9M
Linking Brain and Behavior in Chronic Tic DisordersR01NS097484 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LOO, SANDRA K · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
Developmental Pilot Study of External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation for ADHDR34MH101282 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LOO, SANDRA K, MCGOUGH, JAMES JOHN · 2014 to 2016
$693k
NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH101282NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS097484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotivated by an inconsistency between reports of high diagnosis-classification accuracies and known heterogeneity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), this study assessed classification accuracy in studies of ADHD as a function of methodological factors that can bias results. We hypothesized that high classification results in ADHD diagnosis are inflated by methodological factors.

methodsWe reviewed 69 studies (of 95 studies identified) that used neuroimaging features to predict ADHD diagnosis. Based on reported methods, we assessed the prevalence of circular analysis, which inflates classification accuracy, and evaluated the relationship between sample size and accuracy to test if small-sample models tend to report higher classification accuracy, also an indicator of bias.

resultsCircular analysis was detected in 15.9% of ADHD classification studies, lack of independent test set was noted in 13%, and insufficient methodological detail to establish its presence was noted in another 11.6%. Accuracy of classification ranged from 60% to 80% in the 59.4% of reviewed studies that met criteria for independence of feature selection, model construction, and test datasets. Moreover, there was a negative relationship between accuracy and sample size, implying additional bias contributing to reported accuracies at lower sample sizes.

conclusionsHigh classification accuracies in neuroimaging studies of ADHD appear to be inflated by circular analysis and small sample size. Accuracies on independent datasets were consistent with known heterogeneity of the disorder. Steps to resolve these issues, and a shift toward accounting for sample heterogeneity and prediction of future outcomes, will be crucial in future classification studies in ADHD.

Indexed as

Attention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBiomarkersBrainHumansMachine LearningNeuroimagingReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeBiomarkersADHDBiasCircular analysisClassificationMachine learningSample size

Identifiers

PMID30064848
PMCPMC6310118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.