ArticleScientific reports2025
The discriminate value of event-related potentials in executive function of ADHD and comorbidity of ADHD and ASD.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose The study aimed to assess the value of event-related potentials (ERP) of executive functions in distinguishing between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and ADHD combined with autism spectrum disorder (ADHD&ASD). Methods This retrospective analysis included 204 participants divided into three groups: ADHD&ASD (64/204), ADHD (70/204), and typical development (TD) (70/204). Neuropsychological tests, including the Digit Span Test, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), Trail Making Test at its Chinese equivalent version, the Shape Trail Test (STT), and the Stroop Color Word Interference Test, were compared across groups. ERP measures, such as latency and amplitude at the frontal zone (Fz), central zone (Cz), and parietal zone (Pz), along with reaction times and target stimulus hits using an oddball paradigm, were analyzed. Post-hoc analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves identified key indicators for distinguishing ADHD from ADHD&ASD. Results Significant differences were found in ERP and BRIEF indicators (P < 0.001), as well as selected TMT and Stroop parameters (P < 0.05) across the groups. The ADHD&ASD group exhibited notably higher Fz, Cz, and Pz latencies, interference times, and reaction times compared to the ADHD group (P < 0.05). With the exception of word meaning interference time, the area under ROC curves (AUC) of the remaining five indicators exceeds 0.8. Particularly noteworthy is the combined ROC curve of Fz latency and average reaction time, which demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 88.68%, 97.14%, and 0.938 (95%CI: 0.885-0.990, P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion ERP measurements using oddball paradigms hold strong potential for distinguishing ADHD from ADHD&ASD, enabling the development of more targeted treatment approaches through precise neurophysiological markers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.