> The truth is that when there are 27 variants linked to ADHD, chances are very good that everyone who goes looking will have at least one of these variants. That does not mean they have ADHD, though.

Yes! And vice versa. Lacking one of these variants doesn't mean you don't have ADHD.

I also find this "gene for X" idea troubling. Suppose there are genetic factors that drive increased susceptibility to an environmental factor, for example. Biology is a complex interaction not easily reduced to single-step causal narrative.

I suppose it’s a consequence of cheap DNA sequencing flooding the market. Especially without any “genetic counseling” or other services to help them draw realistic conclusions about their data, it’s only natural that most would have a poor mental model for the nuances of genetic expression.

The title of the original Nature Genetics paper does the same thing:

>Genome-wide analyses of ADHD identify 27 risk loci, refine the genetic architecture and implicate several cognitive domains

My mom has adhd. I have it. My kids have. My sister has it. Her kids have it. Her grandkids.

I’m talking full blow ADHD. Actual diagnosis

Not only is this my experience as well, it represents the massive heritability of it and other disorders. Some studies have shown neurodivergence in 80% of offspring with 2 neurodivergent parents. Another amazing study recently revealed that neurodivergent friendships and romantic partners are 11X more likely to be with a fellow neurodivergent vs neurotypical person. It is theorized it comes down to patterns of behavior and communication- “she gets me like nobody else”.

"Another amazing study recently revealed that neurodivergent friendships and romantic partners"

Neurodivergent, as far as I know, is not a medical term.

Did this study use that term?

"Neurodivergent" is an umbrella term which describes a cluster of neurological disabilities with similar associated traits and experiences. See below:

"Neurodiversity" embraces and celebrates these traits as valuable in the right context.

These are the diagnosis's and related traits that tend to cluster (50-80% cooccurrence in many!)

ADHD Autism Spectrum Disorder ADHD Anxiety Bipolar Creativity Depression Diet Dyslexia Dysgraphia EDS (wobbly joints) Executive Dysfunction Gender expression Giftedness Gastrointestinal issues Insomnia OCD Pattern Recognition PTSD Sensory Processing Disorders Social Communication Disorder Tourette's & Tic Disorders

However diagnostic criteria and practice is weak and varied, and has been based on a mental model where its a physical difference in rear brain mass and shape. This article highlights the complexity:

https://www.planetneurodivergent.com/is-comorbid-specific-en...

Neurodivergence in context:

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1308646

Older metanalysis of comorbidities:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S17509...

The research is coming hot and heavy with new brain scans, DNA, and physical diagnosis rather than mental. We will see a new diagnosis class within the next 5 years. Females, "normalish"-passing, and limited health access have only recently started to influence the data. We're in the midst of a revolution around how this is understood, and an emerging community of people that never could connect before because of social difficulties. Heady times, friends.

Okay but you wrote "Another amazing study recently revealed that neurodivergent friendships and romantic partners are 11X more likely..."

My question was is this a study of neurodivergent people or autistic people or something else? These terms are not interchangable.

There are autosomal dominate conditions that have a comorbidity of ADHD. hEDS for example. The genetic cause for hEDS hasn’t been discovered but there are candidate genes. Clearly given the higher likelihood of having ADHD with hEDS the hEDS genes should show up in ADHD genetic surveys. But diagnosis for ADHD and hEDS are very noisy so it’s still hard to find.

Right, and I frankly don’t see that improving much sooner without cheaper and more objective diagnostic methods. UW eye dilation diagnosis is one example of a bright spot that could help affordably and reliably diagnose. The current diagnostic system is flawed and biased around unequal access to care.

My hope is the increasing availability of WGS data allows for citizen scientists to work around the institutions. hEDS being a good example, the HEDGE study has too strict of entry requirements and thus misses the much more common but less severe types of hEDS. This is possibly by design as maintaining a rare disease classification helps with funding. They also work crazy slow for seemingly no reason besides the obvious that more time means more funding.

Recently some more advanced machine learning techniques have been ported for use in DNA population studies so I’m hopeful that’ll improve research quality.

And we could say "oh this spate of cancer victims in this area must all be genetically related" until we find major chemical spills poisoned the ground water. Correlation is not causation.

Oh yes, but this particular mutation has been discovered at least 100,000 years ago and has been shown in anthropology throughout most societies. It is relatively new in this post-industrial hellscape that we pathologize and punish it.