CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

DAT1 and COMT effects on delay discounting and trait impulsivity in male adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and healthy controls

Open access
Paloyelis, Yannis, Asherson, Philip, Mehta, Mitul A, Faraone, Stephen V, Kuntsi, Jonna·2010·Neuropsychopharmacology
DOI 10.1038/npp.2010.124PMC PMC2955909
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Choice impulsivity has been linked to dopamine function and is consistently observed in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a preference for smaller-immediate over larger-delayed rewards using choice-delay paradigms. More sophisticated delay discounting paradigms have yielded inconsistent results. Context and sample characteristics may have contributed to these variations. In this study we examine the effect of type (real vs hypothetical) and magnitude of reward as well as of variation in dopamine genes on choice impulsivity. We selected 36 male adolescents with ADHD-combined subtype (ADHD-CT) and 32 controls (mean age=15.42, SD=2.05) to form four roughly equally sized subgroups on the basis of DAT110/6 haplotype dosage (2 copies and <2 copies). Participants, who were also genotyped for the COMTval158met and DRD448bp−VNTR polymorphisms, performed a hypothetical and a real-time discounting task and provided self-ratings of trait impulsivity. The ADHD-CT group discounted rewards more steeply than controls only in the hypothetical task, with delay, but not reward magnitude, influencing choices. They also rated themselves as more impulsive compared with controls. DAT110/6 dosage and the COMTVal158Met genotype predicted trait impulsivity and discounting rates in the hypothetical task, but not in the real-time task. Our results directly link variation in genes putatively influencing dopamine signaling in the prefrontal cortex (COMTVal158Met) and the striatum (DAT110/6) with discounting rates in a hypothetical task (but not a real-time task) and self-ratings of trait impulsivity in ADHD-CT and healthy controls. The lack of magnitude effects in the hypothetical task suggests that discounting in this task may be influenced by different processes in ADHD-CT than in healthy controls.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In male adolescents with ADHD-combined subtype and healthy controls, ADHD-CT showed steeper delay discounting than controls only on a hypothetical discounting task, not a real-time task, and reported higher trait impulsivity. DAT1 10/6 dosage and COMT Val158Met genotype predicted hypothetical discounting and trait impulsivity, but not real-time discounting.

Key findings

  • ADHD-CT discounted rewards more steeply than controls in the hypothetical task but not the real-time task, and rated themselves as more impulsive than controls.
  • In the hypothetical task, discounting decreased as reward magnitude increased (F(2,132)=7.62, p=.001), but this magnitude effect was seen only in controls (magnitude × diagnosis: F(2,132)=5.39, p=.009).
  • DAT1 10/6 status interacted with diagnosis for hypothetical discounting (puncorrected=.005; R2=.086; discussion reports 11.7% of variance); ADHD-CT showed higher discounting than controls only among carriers of <2 DAT1 10/6 copies (puncorrected<.001), and control DAT1 10/6 homozygotes discounted more steeply than controls with <2 copies (puncorrected=.002).
  • COMT Val158Met predicted hypothetical discounting independent of diagnosis (puncorrected=.013; R2=.068), with Met-allele homozygotes discounting more steeply than Val-allele carriers (puncorrected=.014). DAT1 10/6 also predicted trait impulsivity (puncorrected=.004; R2=.095), with homozygotes reporting lower impulsivity than carriers of <2 copies. No DRD4 48bp-VNTR effects were found on any impulsivity measure.

Methods

  • Sample: 68 male Caucasian adolescents aged 11–20 years (M=15.42, SD=2.05), including 36 with ADHD-combined subtype and 32 controls, selected by DAT1 10/6 haplotype dosage (2 copies vs <2 copies) into four roughly equal subgroups; participants were also genotyped for COMT Val158Met and DRD4 48bp-VNTR. Of the ADHD group, 72% discontinued stimulant medication for at least 48 hours before testing.
  • Measures: a hypothetical adjusting-amount delay discounting task (delays 1–180 days; standard amounts £5, £15, £30) and a real-time Experiential Discounting Task (delays 1, 7, 14, 28 seconds; probabilistic 35% £0.20 vs certain immediate amount), plus BIS-11A self-rated trait impulsivity. Discounting rates were indexed by area under the curve (AUC).
  • Analysis: age was covaried in all analyses; MANCOVA/ANCOVA and mixed ANCOVA tested diagnosis, reward magnitude, and genetic effects; Bonferroni-adjusted critical p-values were α=.017 for genetic ANCOVAs and α=.004 for simple effects; parametric results were confirmed with 10,000 random permutations. Analyses were repeated excluding ADHD participants with parent Conners’ T-scores <63 and those with substance use/heavy smoking.

Limitations

  • The paper states that sample size is a limitation and that the genetic findings should be considered preliminary until confirmed in a larger sample; it also notes the study was not designed to distinguish trait from state impulsivity or to test models of impulsive behavior in ADHD.
  • The paper calls for future studies with a wider range of real-time paradigms, gene-by-gene interaction analyses, and assessment of confounds such as long-term stimulant treatment effects in the ADHD-CT group.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was restricted to male Caucasian adolescents, genotype subgroups were small, medication was discontinued for only at least 48 hours, and in the hypothetical task the randomly selected honored question always came from the £5 category despite choices involving £15 and £30.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/npp.2010.124

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 58 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    There were no effects of the DRD4 48bp-VNTR polymorphism on any impulsivity measures.

    “There were no effects for the DRD448bp-VNTR polymorphism on any on the impulsivity measures”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Among carriers of <2 copies of DAT1 10/6, ADHD-CT participants showed higher discounting rates than controls.

    “Adolescents with ADHD-CT showed higher discounting rates than controls only among carriers of <2 copies of DAT110/6 (pcorrected<.05; puncorrected<.001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was a significant interaction between reward magnitude and diagnosis on hypothetical discounting rates.

    “but only in the control group (magnitude X diagnosis: F(2,132)=5.39, p=.009; covarying IQ/SES: p=.022)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    COMT Met-allele homozygotes showed higher discounting rates than Val-allele carriers.

    “Met-allele homozygotes showed higher discounting rates than Val-allele carriers (pcorrected<.05; puncorrected=.014)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The COMT Val158Met polymorphism predicted discounting rates in the hypothetical task independent of diagnosis.

    “The COMTval158met polymorphism predicted discounting rates independent of diagnosis; covarying trait-impulsivity ratings had no impact”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ADHD-CT participants reported higher trait-impulsivity than controls if they carried <2 DAT1 10/6 copies, but not among DAT1 10/6 homozygotes.

    “adolescents with ADHD-CT reported higher levels of impulsivity compared to controls if they carried <2 DAT110/6 copies (pcorrected<.05; puncorrected<.001) but not among DAT110/6 homozygotes (puncorrected=.13)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a trend for a diagnosis X DAT1 10/6 interaction on trait-impulsivity, suggesting the effect might be significant only in the ADHD-CT group.

    “A trend for a diagnosis X DAT110/6 (puncorrected<.10) suggested that this effect might be significant only in the ADHD-CT group”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The DAT1 10/6 interaction with diagnosis was only a trend for trait-impulsivity ratings, accounting for 4.7% of the variance.

    “Although the DAT110/6 interaction with diagnosis was only a trend for trait-impulsivity ratings, it accounted for 4.7% of the variance”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no significant correlations between real-time discounting rates and trait-impulsivity scores, or between real-time and hypothetical discounting rates.

    “lack of significant correlations between discounting rates in the real-time task and trait-impulsivity scores, or discounting rates in the hypothetical task”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The pattern of findings in this study distinguishes between aspects of impulsivity by demonstrating specific effects of diagnosis and variation in dopamine genes (DAT1 10/6, COMT Val158Met) on behavioral and laboratory measures assumed to reflect relatively stable aspects of impulsivity (discounting in the hypothetical task, trait-impulsivity self-ratings) but not on discounting rates in a real-ti

    “In summary, the pattern of findings in this study distinguishes between aspects of impulsivity by demonstrating specific effects of diagnosis and variation in dopamine genes (DAT110/6, COMTVal158Met ) on behavioral and laboratory measures assumed to reflect relatively stable aspects of impulsivity (discounting in the hypothetical task, trait-impulsivity self-ratings) but not on discounting rates”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Behavioral and laboratory measures (discounting in the hypothetical task, trait-impulsivity self-ratings) reflect relatively stable aspects of impulsivity.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Covarying trait-impulsivity ratings or discounting rates when examining the genetic effects on either measure left effect sizes virtually unchanged and results remained significant.

    “Covarying trait-impulsivity ratings or discounting rates when examining the genetic effects on either measure left effect sizes virtually unchanged and results remained significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    The contrast between hypothetical and real-time tasks in diagnostic group and gene effects is novel.

    “The contrast between discounting rates in the hypothetical and real-time tasks in terms of diagnostic group and gene effects is novel.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Meta-analytic evidence has not associated ADHD with COMT Val158Met.

    “Meta-analytic evidence has not associated ADHD with COMTVal158Met (Gizer et al, 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gizer et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some evidence suggests that gender could be a moderating factor with Met being the risk allele in boys.

    “some evidence suggests that gender could be a moderating factor with Met being the risk allele in boys (Biederman et al, 2008; Qian et al, 2003)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Biederman et al, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Qian et al, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Impulsive behavior is a key characteristic of several psychiatric conditions, including ADHD.

    “Impulsive behavior is a key characteristic of several psychiatric conditions, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Moeller et al, 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moeller et al, 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Performance in the hypothetical task putatively reflects a relatively stable individual difference (trait impulsivity), whereas performance in the real-time task may be more sensitive to transient state-impulsivity.

    “one possible distinction is that performance in the hypothetical task putatively reflects a relatively stable individual difference (an aspect of trait impulsivity), whereas performance in the real-time task may be more sensitive to the transient effects of factors affecting state-impulsivity”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Real-time tasks are more sensitive to state-impulsivity than hypothetical tasks.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    No significant associations were observed between the DRD4 48bp-VNTR and COMT Val158Met polymorphisms and disease status.

    “no significant associations were observed with disease status.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Delay discounting paradigms have been used in few studies with ADHD patients, yielding somewhat inconsistent findings.

    “Delay discounting paradigms overcome many of these problems, but have been used in few studies with ADHD patients, yielding somewhat inconsistent findings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Barkley et al, 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Scheres et al, 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Scheres et al, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    DAT1 and COMT are responsible for the bulk of dopamine degradation in the striatum and prefrontal cortex respectively.

    “which are responsible for the bulk of dopamine degradation in the striatum and the prefrontal cortex respectively”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Akil et al, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Chen et al, 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lewis et al, 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The DAT1 3′UTR 48 base-pair VNTR polymorphism (part of the DAT1 10/6 haplotype) has been associated with alterations in gene expression.

    “although the DAT13′UTR 48 base-pair VNTR polymorphism (part of the DAT110/6 haplotype) has been associated with alterations in gene expression, evidence regarding the impact of specific variants is inconsistent (for a review, see van de Giessen et al, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van de Giessen et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ADHD is associated with deficiencies in dopamine signaling and abnormalities in dopamine-modulated fronto-striatal circuits.

    “Pharmacological, genetic and neuroimaging studies converge on the idea that ADHD is associated with deficiencies in dopamine signaling and abnormalities in dopamine-modulated fronto-striatal circuits”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bush, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gizer et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Krause et al, 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Predicting the precise role of a genetic variant on behavioral impulsivity may still be elusive, given that it is likely to depend on the dynamic interaction among many factors and reflect the outcome of long-term adaptation processes.

    “Second, even when the effects of genetic variation in terms of gene expression and dopamine catabolism are better understood (e.g. COMTVal158Met), predicting the precise role of a variant on behavioral impulsivity may still be elusive, given that it is likely to depend on the dynamic interaction among many factors and reflect the outcome of long-term adaptation processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Experimentally measured discounting rates using hypothetical tasks show good temporal stability, suggesting they reflect a relatively stable individual difference.

    “Experimentally measured discounting rates using hypothetical tasks show good temporal stability (Audrain-McGovern et al, 2009; Beck and Triplett, 2009; Kirby, 2009; Ohmura et al, 2006), similar to personality traits (Costa and McCrae, 1992), suggesting that they reflect a relatively stable individual difference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Audrain-McGovern et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Beck and Triplett, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kirby, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Met has been associated with ADHD inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms in adult community samples.

    “Moreover, Met has been associated with ADHD inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms in adult community samples (Ettinger et al, 2006; Gothelf et al, 2007; Michaelovsky et al, 2008; Reuter et al, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ettinger et al, 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gothelf et al, 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Michaelovsky et al, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Methylphenidate reduced discounting rates in a real-time task but not in a hypothetical discounting task in ADHD patients.

    “methylphenidate reduced discounting rates in a real-time task but not in a hypothetical discounting task in ADHD patients (Shiels et al, 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shiels et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some promising initial evidence has indicated that the DAT1 3′UTR polymorphism may be modulating the responsivity of the striatum during a response inhibition and a reward-processing paradigm.

    “Some promising initial evidence has indicated that the DAT13′UTR polymorphism may be modulating the responsivity of the striatum during a response inhibition and a reward-processing paradigm (Durston et al, 2008; Forbes et al, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Durston et al, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Forbes et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Met-allele is associated with increased risk for ADHD in children in a predominantly male (84%) sample.

    “A recent study confirmed the association of the Met-allele with increased risk for ADHD in children in a predominantly male (84%) sample, and also reported that Met was associated with increased symptom severity (Pálmason et al, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pálmason et al, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The genetic findings should be considered as preliminary until confirmed within a larger sample.

    “The sample size is a limitation of this study; the genetic findings should be considered as preliminary until confirmed within a larger sample, which should also examine gene by gene interactions and assess the impact of potential confounds pertaining to the ADHD-CT group, such as possible gene interactions with the effects of long-term stimulant treatment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Met is associated with increased symptom severity.

    “A recent study confirmed the association of the Met-allele with increased risk for ADHD in children in a predominantly male (84%) sample, and also reported that Met was associated with increased symptom severity (Pálmason et al, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pálmason et al, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    COMTVal158Met is differentially expressed across genders.

    “This is consistent with evidence that COMTVal158Met is differentially expressed across genders (Dempster et al, 2006; Gogos et al, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dempster et al, 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gogos et al, 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    Our data suggest that existing ADHD models need to distinguish between trait and state aspects of impulsivity.

    “Our data suggest though that existing ADHD models need to distinguish between trait and state aspects of impulsivity, and that arousal-regulation should be further investigated as one potential mechanism contributing to real-time impulsive decision-making in ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Our study was not designed to distinguish between trait and state aspects of impulsivity, or test the various models predicting impulsive behavior in ADHD.

    “However, our study was not designed to distinguish between trait and state aspects of impulsivity, or test the various models predicting impulsive behavior in ADHD; these goals should be addressed in future research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The DRD4 48bp-VNTR has consistently been associated with ADHD.

    “a common variant of the dopamine D4-receptor gene (DRD448bp-VNTR) (Asghari et al, 1995) that has consistently been associated with ADHD (Brookes et al, 2006a; Gizer et al, 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brookes et al, 2006a

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gizer et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The DAT1 10-repeat allele is considered to increase risk for ADHD in children and adolescents.

    “For example, the DAT1 10-repeat allele is considered to increase risk for ADHD in children and adolescents, yet in adults (and thus, by definition, in persisting forms of the disorder) ADHD has been associated with the 9-repeat allele (Franke et al, 2008; Franke et al, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Franke et al, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Franke et al, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Prospective studies suggest that high discounting rates may indicate vulnerability for the development of substance abuse/dependence across species.

    “prospective studies suggest that high discounting rates may indicate vulnerability for the development of such problems across species”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Anker et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Audrain-McGovern et al, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dandy and Gatch, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

30 of 30

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There is some optimal level of dopamine modulating the function of frontal-striatal circuits underlying impulsive behavior; any factor disturbing this balance in either direction would impair behavior.

    “assuming that there is some optimal level of dopamine modulating the function of frontal-striatal circuits underlying impulsive behavior, any factor disturbing this balance in either direction would be likely to impair behavior”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Real-time tasks are more sensitive to state-impulsivity than hypothetical tasks.

    “which consequently might induce changes in state-impulsivity (to which real-time tasks are assumed to be more sensitive)”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Behavioral and laboratory measures (discounting in the hypothetical task, trait-impulsivity self-ratings) reflect relatively stable aspects of impulsivity.

    “behavioral and laboratory measures assumed to reflect relatively stable aspects of impulsivity (discounting in the hypothetical task, trait-impulsivity self-ratings)”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Experimental data suggest an association between risky and impulsive behavior, characteristic of ADHD, and dopamine release or dopamine-dependent BOLD response to rewards in the striatum.

    “Additionally, experimental data suggest an association between risky and impulsive behavior, which is characteristic of ADHD,14–16 and dopamine release or dopamine-dependent BOLD response to rewards in the striatum.11,17–20”

    From Striatal sensitivity during reward processing in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (2012) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Previous data from the same sample showed that DAT110/6 homozygosity predicted reduced reward-related impulsivity in the ADHD-CT group, but increased impulsivity in the control group.

    “Second, previous data from the same sample showed that DAT110/6 homozygosity predicted reduced reward-related impulsivity in the ADHD-CT group, but increased impulsivity in the control group.15”

    From Striatal sensitivity during reward processing in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (2012) · cites this paper as [15]

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(2, 132) = 7.62reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,132)=7.62, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 132) = 5.39reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(2,132)=5.39, p = .009”

    The paper states a sphericity correction

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Paloyelis, Y., Asherson, P., Mehta, M. A., Faraone, S. V., & Kuntsi, J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • SUNY Upstate Medical University (US)
Corresponding author
Paloyelis, Yannis
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychopharmacology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-08-25
Volume
35
Issue
12
Pages
2414-2426
ISSN
  • 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-634X
DOI
10.1038/npp.2010.124
PMC
PMC2955909
OpenAlex
W2059057473
Semantic Scholar
1b53547c815b185c175403f33991a0fedff6cbde
Cited by
180
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 22
FWCI
11.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council (G03001896)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH081803, R01MH062873)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
delay discounting, trait impulsivity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, DAT1, catechol-O-methyltransferase, dopamine genes, COMT Val158Met, reward magnitude, adolescents
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Catechol O-Methyltransferase, Child, Choice Behavior, Haplotypes, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Polymorphism, Genetic, Reward, Dopamine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins, Receptors, Dopamine D4, Young Adult, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review