ArticleJCPP advances2026
Categories or dimensions? A critical systematic review of taxometric evidence in autism, ADHD, and language disorders.
Article in JCPP advances, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Taxometric analysis is designed to test whether the latent structure underlying clinical conditions is categorical (taxonic) or dimensional. Despite its relevance to ongoing debates on neurodevelopmental conditions, its application to this field remains limited. Methods: We conducted a preregistered systematic review (OSF) searching PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to April 2025, with a supplementary search made in January 2026. We included peer-reviewed empirical studies applying at least one taxometric procedure (e.g., MAMBAC, MAXEIG, MAXCOV, L-Mode) to neurodevelopmental conditions/traits and reporting a categorical versus dimensional conclusion (or sufficient indices to infer it). Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Study quality (risk of bias for taxometric inference) was appraised using an ad hoc checklist focused on key threats, especially artificial admixture/compound sampling, and on reporting of indicator validity, nuisance covariance, and skewness. Findings were synthesized descriptively. Results: We identified 126 records across the main database search ( Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, ADHD and language impairment appear continuous dimensions rather than discrete categories. Evidence for a categorical structure is stronger for autism, but a definitive conclusion is frustrated by sampling-related biases, especially artificial admixture. More population-based, methodologically transparent taxometric studies are needed.
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.