First, Doe suggests that the hearing examiner improperly rejected the opinion of his expert, Dr. Joseph Plaud, that he presented only a negligible risk of reoffense. It is well established that an examiner may adopt or reject, in whole or in part, an expert's opinion provided the examiner has adequate reason to do so. Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 1211 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 750, 764 (2006). Contrary to the plaintiff's suggestion, the record establishes that the hearing examiner fully and carefully considered Dr. Plaud's report, testimony, and opinion but found them unpersuasive for multiple, well-articulated reasons. For example, the hearing examiner acknowledged that Dr. Plaud did not base his analysis on the comprehensive risk factors set forth in G. L. c. 6, § 178K (1) (a ) - (k ), and 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.33 (2016), and therefore examined only a limited number of the factors that the hearing examiner was required to consider. For example, the hearing examiner found three of the regulatory "high-risk" factors to be fully applicable to Doe.2 See and compare Doe No. 1211, supra (examiner properly rejected expert's opinion where examiner found applicable several risk elevating factors, including two "high-risk" factors). In addition, the hearing examiner found numerous additional regulatory risk elevating factors to be fully or partially applicable.3 On this record, the hearing examiner did not abuse her discretion by finding Dr. Plaud's opinion "less than convincing."