The Symptom Gap for Women with ADHD: The Hidden Signs Behind Anxiety, Depression, and Late Recognition

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, more commonly known as ADHD, is historically known as a neurodevelopmental disorder that interferes with daily function and development through inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. However, this definition is largely based on how ADHD has been studied and recognized in men rather than in women. Today, in schools, homes, and medical settings, researchers and clinicians are paying closer attention to how ADHD presents differently in women and girls because so many have gone undiagnosed for years. Women often experience ADHD symptoms that are more masked, internalized, and frequently misdiagnosed (Littman & Wagenberg, 2023; Platania et al., 2025; Stibbe et al., 2020). Especially when undiagnosed, ADHD can cause several disruptive and antisocial behaviors over the lifespan of patients, ranging from substance abuse and work absenteeism to criminality, further contributing to the socioeconomic burden of the disease (Stibbe et al., 2020). Misdiagnosis can change the trajectory of one’s life, and it changed mine. 

I grew up in an immigrant home where struggling academically was not a choice. As an adolescent, I often did badly when I was left to complete tasks without my mother’s supervision. My mother would get upset, indicating that I needed to “grow up.” Fast forward to high school: I got diagnosed with anxiety and depression because of experiences that I had been going through, even though I still became my class’s salutatorian. Therapy was not resolving my overbearing amount of anxiety and depression. I would always ponder when I would stop feeling so awful. I got to college, where life became centered around self-accountability and doing well, and I genuinely could not function because I could not concentrate on anything. This past year, I got diagnosed with ADHD after years of appearing high-functioning, meaning I would work under high stress while my mental health suffered as a result. It all finally made sense to me. 

I went undetected for 20 years of my life as a woman due to the stigma and diagnostic gap between how ADHD presents in men and in women. I struggled so much as a woman being held up to high expectations while not understanding why my brain would not function the way I wanted it to. You must be wondering, how could this even happen? One major reason is that, in classrooms, clinics, and even at home, ADHD in women often does not look like the version people expect. Mental health conditions can be misdiagnosed quite frequently, even though they are often the main expressive behaviors in women’s ADHD symptoms. Men are more likely to experience externalizing disorders, such as substance or alcohol abuse, antisocial personality disorder, and conduct disorder, while internalizing disorders, such as anxiety, depression, somatic symptoms, and bulimia, are more common in women (Littman & Wagenberg, 2023; Martin et al., 2018; Platania et al., 2025). 

 Symptom masking has become quite common among women with ADHD (Marschall, 2026; Platania et al., 2025). Women, including myself, often have a greater tendency to internalize their struggles, as we are often told that it is our “hormones” or something that can be left to be resolved by ourselves. Since men exhibit more defining features of ADHD that have been researched based on adolescent and male populations, they are more likely to get symptom relief through medication at a younger age than women (Littman & Wagenberg, 2023; Platania et al., 2025). 

As mentioned earlier, hormones play a completely different role in gender symptom manifestations, yet this is often overlooked. Across different stages of life and in healthcare settings, this can make women’s ADHD even harder to recognize. A premenstrual girl with ADHD presenting to a clinician as insecure, anxious, and despondent can appear confident, effective, and hopeful a week later, after menstruation commences (Littman & Wagenberg, 2023; Quinn & Madhoo, 2014). Several women around me who have been diagnosed with ADHD have discussed the major highs and lows they have and how they feel like they are “going insane.” However, often they get directed to the idea of having PMDD or other menstrual-hormone associated disorders compared to ADHD. Women with ADHD exhibit high rates of premenstrual syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, severe postpartum depression, and climacteric symptoms when compared with their neurotypical peers (Quinn & Madhoo, 2014). 

Today, researchers believe there is a need to develop a new edition of the DIVA-5 designed to better capture ADHD manifestations in women and girls, and examining gender differences in populations with and without ADHD could deepen our understanding of how ADHD manifests across genders (Platania et al., 2025). If clinicians had been better equipped to recognize these signs earlier, I may have understood myself sooner and spent less of my life believing I simply was not enough as an individual. Closing the symptom gap for women with ADHD is not just about improving diagnosis; it is about ensuring that more girls and women are understood, supported, and treated before being detrimentally impacted long-term. 

 

References: 

Davies, W. (2014). Sex differences in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Candidate genetic and endocrine mechanisms. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 35(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2014.03.003  

Littman, E. B., & Wagenberg, B. (2023, July 26). Gender differences in ADHD and their clinical implications. Psychiatric Times, 40(7). https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/gender-differences-in-adhd-and-their-clinical-implications  

Marschall, A. (2026, March 31). ADHD masking harms neurodivergent women at work. ADDitude. https://www.additudemag.com/neurodivergent-women-in-workplace-adhd-masking/  

Martin, J., Walters, R. K., Demontis, D., Mattheisen, M., Lee, S. H., Robinson, E., Als, T. D., Brikell, I., Ghirardi, L., Larsson, H., Sullivan, P. F., Thapar, A., Neale, B. M., & Andreassen, O. A. (2018). Sex-specific manifestation of genetic risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the general population. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(8), 908–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12874  

Platania, N. M., Starreveld, D. E. J., Wynchank, D., Beekman, A. T. F., & Kooij, J. J. S. (2025). Bias by gender: Exploring gender-based differences in the endorsement of ADHD symptoms and impairment among adult patients. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health, 6, Article 1549028. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2025.1549028  

Quinn, P. O., & Madhoo, M. (2014). A review of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in women and girls: Uncovering this hidden diagnosis. The Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders, 16(3), Article PCC.13r01596. https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.13r01596  

Ramtekkar, U. P., Reiersen, A. M., Todorov, A. A., & Todd, R. D. (2010). Sex and age differences in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and diagnoses: Implications for DSM-V and ICD-11. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(3), 217–228.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2009.11.011  

Stibbe, T., Huang, J., Paucke, M., Ulke, C., & Strauss, M. (2020). Gender differences in adult ADHD: Cognitive function assessed by the test of attentional performance. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0240810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240810 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.