OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric "nosology" is largely based on clinical phenomenology using convention-based diagnostic systems not necessarily reflecting neurobiological pathomechanisms. While progress has been made regarding its molecular biology and neuropathology, the phenotypic characterization of ADHD has not improved. Thus, validated biomarkers, more directly linked to the underlying pathology, could constitute an objective measure for the condition. METHOD: The task force on biological markers of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) and the World Federation of ADHD commissioned this paper to develop a consensus report on potential biomarkers of ADHD. The criteria for biomarker-candidate evaluation were: (1) sensitivity >80%, (2) specificity >80%, (3) the candidate is reliable, reproducible, inexpensive, non-invasive, easy to use, and (4) confirmed by at least two independent studies in peer-reviewed journals conducted by qualified investigators. RESULTS: No reliable ADHD biomarker has been described to date, but some promising candidates (e.g., olfactory sensitivity, substantial echogenicity) exist. A problem in the development of ADHD markers is sample heterogeneity due to aetiological and phenotypic complexity and age-dependent co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Most likely, no single ADHD biomarker can be identified. However, the use of a combination of markers may help to reduce heterogeneity and to identify homogeneous subtypes of ADHD.
OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric "nosology" is largely based on clinical phenomenology using convention-based diagnostic systems not necessarily reflecting neurobiological pathomechanisms. While progress has been made regarding its molecular biology and neuropathology, the phenotypic characterization of ADHD has not improved. Thus, validated biomarkers, more directly linked to the underlying pathology, could constitute an objective measure for the condition. METHOD: The task force on biological markers of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) and the World Federation of ADHD commissioned this paper to develop a consensus report on potential biomarkers of ADHD. The criteria for biomarker-candidate evaluation were: (1) sensitivity >80%, (2) specificity >80%, (3) the candidate is reliable, reproducible, inexpensive, non-invasive, easy to use, and (4) confirmed by at least two independent studies in peer-reviewed journals conducted by qualified investigators. RESULTS: No reliable ADHD biomarker has been described to date, but some promising candidates (e.g., olfactory sensitivity, substantial echogenicity) exist. A problem in the development of ADHD markers is sample heterogeneity due to aetiological and phenotypic complexity and age-dependent co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Most likely, no single ADHD biomarker can be identified. However, the use of a combination of markers may help to reduce heterogeneity and to identify homogeneous subtypes of ADHD.
Authors: Stephen V Faraone; Jeffrey H Newcorn; Kevin M Antshel; Lenard Adler; Kurt Roots; Monika Heller Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: A Kautzky; T Vanicek; C Philippe; G S Kranz; W Wadsak; M Mitterhauser; A Hartmann; A Hahn; M Hacker; D Rujescu; S Kasper; R Lanzenberger Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Stephen V Faraone; Tobias Banaschewski; David Coghill; Yi Zheng; Joseph Biederman; Mark A Bellgrove; Jeffrey H Newcorn; Martin Gignac; Nouf M Al Saud; Iris Manor; Luis Augusto Rohde; Li Yang; Samuele Cortese; Doron Almagor; Mark A Stein; Turki H Albatti; Haya F Aljoudi; Mohammed M J Alqahtani; Philip Asherson; Lukoye Atwoli; Sven Bölte; Jan K Buitelaar; Cleo L Crunelle; David Daley; Søren Dalsgaard; Manfred Döpfner; Stacey Espinet; Michael Fitzgerald; Barbara Franke; Manfred Gerlach; Jan Haavik; Catharina A Hartman; Cynthia M Hartung; Stephen P Hinshaw; Pieter J Hoekstra; Chris Hollis; Scott H Kollins; J J Sandra Kooij; Jonna Kuntsi; Henrik Larsson; Tingyu Li; Jing Liu; Eugene Merzon; Gregory Mattingly; Paulo Mattos; Suzanne McCarthy; Amori Yee Mikami; Brooke S G Molina; Joel T Nigg; Diane Purper-Ouakil; Olayinka O Omigbodun; Guilherme V Polanczyk; Yehuda Pollak; Alison S Poulton; Ravi Philip Rajkumar; Andrew Reding; Andreas Reif; Katya Rubia; Julia Rucklidge; Marcel Romanos; J Antoni Ramos-Quiroga; Arnt Schellekens; Anouk Scheres; Renata Schoeman; Julie B Schweitzer; Henal Shah; Mary V Solanto; Edmund Sonuga-Barke; César Soutullo; Hans-Christoph Steinhausen; James M Swanson; Anita Thapar; Gail Tripp; Geurt van de Glind; Wim van den Brink; Saskia Van der Oord; Andre Venter; Benedetto Vitiello; Susanne Walitza; Yufeng Wang Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 9.052