ArticleBMC psychology2026
Executive dysfunction and impulsivity in adolescence: a cross-lagged panel network analysis.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBased on the perspective of network psychopathology, this study investigates the networks of executive dysfunction and impulsivity in adolescents, with the aim of identifying central and bridge symptoms.
methodsThis study measured impulsivity and executive dysfunction twice among 539 Chinese adolescents (M = 15.07 years, SD = 1.31; 58.9% female) with a 12-month interval. A cross-lagged panel network analysis model was applied for data analysis.
resultsIn this cross-lagged panel network analysis model, there was a total of 194 edges. Within the executive dysfunction network, the strongest longitudinal prediction was from “repetitive mistakes” to “uncontrollable laughter” (strength 0.13). Within the impulsivity network, the strongest was from “cognitive impulsivity” to “non-planning impulsivity” (strength 0.10). The four strongest bridging paths connecting the two networks, in order of strength, were: Recklessness → Motor impulsivity (0.89), Recklessness → Non-planning impulsivity (0.34), Repetitive mistakes → Cognitive impulsivity (0.33), Inattention → Motor impulsivity (0.31). Centrality and bridge centrality indicated that D3 (impulsivity/recklessness) exhibited the highest out-expected influence (out-EI = 1.71), I1 (non-planning impulsivity) demonstrated the highest in-expected influence (in-EI = 1.43). D3 (impulsivity/recklessness) also showed the highest bridge expected influence (BEI = 1.49), establishing it as the most critical bridging symptom linking the executive dysfunction and impulsivity communities in adolescents.
conclusionsThis study provides a new perspective for understanding the dynamic connection between executive dysfunction and impulsivity in adolescents, suggesting that future interventions targeting executive dysfunction associated with recklessness could reduce the development of impulsivity in adolescents.
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.