@article{PostemaHoogmanAmbrosinoetal.2021,
  author    = {Postema, Merel C. and Hoogman, Martine and Ambrosino, Sara and Asherson, Philip and Banaschewski, Tobias and Bandeira, Cibele E. and Baranov, Alexandr and Bau, Claiton H.D. and Baumeister, Sarah and Baur-Streubel, Ramona and Bellgrove, Mark A. and Biederman, Joseph and Bralten, Janita and Brandeis, Daniel and Brem, Silvia and Buitelaar, Jan K. and Busatto, Geraldo F. and Castellanos, Francisco X. and Cercignani, Mara and Chaim-Avancini, Tiffany M. and Chantiluke, Kaylita C. and Christakou, Anastasia and Coghill, David and Conzelmann, Annette and Cubillo, Ana I. and Cupertino, Renata B. and de Zeeuw, Patrick and Doyle, Alysa E. and Durston, Sarah and Earl, Eric A. and Epstein, Jeffery N. and Ethofer, Thomas and Fair, Damien A. and Fallgatter, Andreas J. and Faraone, Stephen V. and Frodl, Thomas and Gabel, Matt C. and Gogberashvili, Tinatin and Grevet, Eugenio H. and Haavik, Jan and Harrison, Neil A. and Hartman, Catharina A. and Heslenfeld, Dirk J. and Hoekstra, Pieter J. and Hohmann, Sarah and H{\o}vik, Marie F. and Jernigan, Terry L. and Kardatzki, Bernd and Karkashadze, Georgii and Kelly, Clare and Kohls, Gregor and Konrad, Kerstin and Kuntsi, Jonna and Lazaro, Luisa and Lera-Miguel, Sara and Lesch, Klaus-Peter and Louza, Mario R. and Lundervold, Astri J. and Malpas, Charles B and Mattos, Paulo and McCarthy, Hazel and Namazova-Baranova, Leyla and Nicolau, Rosa and Nigg, Joel T. and Novotny, Stephanie E. and Oberwelland Weiss, Eileen and O'Gorman Tuura, Ruth L. and Oosterlaan, Jaap and Oranje, Bob and Paloyelis, Yannis and Pauli, Paul and Picon, Felipe A. and Plessen, Kerstin J. and Ramos-Quiroga, J. Antoni and Reif, Andreas and Reneman, Liesbeth and Rosa, Pedro G.P. and Rubia, Katya and Schrantee, Anouk and Schweren, Lizanne J.S. and Seitz, Jochen and Shaw, Philip and Silk, Tim J. and Skokauskas, Norbert and Soliva Vila, Juan C. and Stevens, Michael C. and Sudre, Gustavo and Tamm, Leanne and Tovar-Moll, Fernanda and van Erp, Theo G.M. and Vance, Alasdair and Vilarroya, Oscar and Vives-Gilabert, Yolanda and von Polier, Georg G. and Walitza, Susanne and Yoncheva, Yuliya N. and Zanetti, Marcus V. and Ziegler, Georg C. and Glahn, David C. and Jahanshad, Neda and Medland, Sarah E. and Thompson, Paul M. and Fisher, Simon E. and Franke, Barbara and Francks, Clyde},
  title     = {Analysis of structural brain asymmetries in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in 39 datasets},
  series = {Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry},
  volume    = {62},
  journal   = {Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry},
  number    = {10},
  doi       = {10.1111/jcpp.13396},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-239968},
  pages     = {1202 -- 1219},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Objective Some studies have suggested alterations of structural brain asymmetry in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but findings have been contradictory and based on small samples. Here, we performed the largest ever analysis of brain left-right asymmetry in ADHD, using 39 datasets of the ENIGMA consortium. Methods We analyzed asymmetry of subcortical and cerebral cortical structures in up to 1,933 people with ADHD and 1,829 unaffected controls. Asymmetry Indexes (AIs) were calculated per participant for each bilaterally paired measure, and linear mixed effects modeling was applied separately in children, adolescents, adults, and the total sample, to test exhaustively for potential associations of ADHD with structural brain asymmetries. Results There was no evidence for altered caudate nucleus asymmetry in ADHD, in contrast to prior literature. In children, there was less rightward asymmetry of the total hemispheric surface area compared to controls (t = 2.1, p = .04). Lower rightward asymmetry of medial orbitofrontal cortex surface area in ADHD (t = 2.7, p = .01) was similar to a recent finding for autism spectrum disorder. There were also some differences in cortical thickness asymmetry across age groups. In adults with ADHD, globus pallidus asymmetry was altered compared to those without ADHD. However, all effects were small (Cohen's d from -0.18 to 0.18) and would not survive study-wide correction for multiple testing. Conclusion Prior studies of altered structural brain asymmetry in ADHD were likely underpowered to detect the small effects reported here. Altered structural asymmetry is unlikely to provide a useful biomarker for ADHD, but may provide neurobiological insights into the trait.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{OpitzSchuwerkPaulusetal.2021,
  author    = {Opitz, Timm and Schuwerk, Tobias and Paulus, Markus and Kloo, Daniela and Osterhaus, Christopher and Lesch, Klaus-Peter and Sodian, Beate},
  title     = {No links between genetic variation and developing theory of mind: A preregistered replication attempt of candidate gene studies},
  series = {Developmental Science},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Developmental Science},
  number    = {5},
  doi       = {10.1111/desc.13100},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-238812},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Genetic variability is being discussed as a source of inter-individual differences in Theory of Mind development. Previous studies documented an association between variations in DRD4 VNTR 48 bp, OXTR rs53576, COMT rs4680, and Theory of Mind task performance. As empirical evidence on these associations is sparse, we conducted a preregistered replication attempt of a study reporting a link between DRD4 VNTR 48 bp and false belief understanding in 50-month-old children [Lackner, C., Sabbagh, M. A., Hallinan, E., Liu, X., \& Holden, J. J. (2012). Developmental Science, 15(2), 272-280.]. Additionally, we attempted a replication of studies on the role of OXTR rs53576 and COMT rs4680 in Theory of Mind. In both replication attempts, we did not find any evidence for associations between the sampled genetic markers and Theory of Mind ability in a series of analyses. Extending the replication attempt of Lackner et al., we employed longitudinal data from several tasks and measurement points, which allowed us to run follow-up robustness checks with more reliable scores. These extensive analyses corroborated our null finding. This comprehensive non-replication is important to balance current research on genetic markers of Theory of Mind. In a combined evaluation of our own and previous studies, we point to substantial methodological issues that research on the genetic basis of Theory of Mind development faces. We conclude that these limitations currently prevent firm conclusions on genetic influences on Theory of Mind development.},
  language  = {en}
}