ArticleResearch square2026
Harmonized psychiatric diagnosis data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study.
Article in Research square, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, the computerized Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS-COMP) was administered to 11,858 participants at up to eight waves. The structure of these data creates the need for many scoring decisions. Present and lifetime diagnoses, and parent and youth reports, are each stored separately; two instrument versions are pooled into shared columns; the same administrative codes represent several distinct forms of missingness; branch-skip logic produces missing data by design, and modules were added and dropped across the biennial schedule. Researchers resolve these features differently, so definitions of diagnoses vary significantly across studies. The consequences are substantial: holding the data fixed at release 7.0, the prevalence of any single disorder in ABCD ranges from 1.9% to 56.8%, depending on which definition is used. In this paper, we present a pipeline that makes each of these decisions explicit, along with a harmonized, analysis-ready diagnostic dataset for ABCD release 7.0. We also provide recommendations for multiverse analysis and a clinically informed recommended configuration.
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.