Childhood Stimulant Treatment and Teen Depression: Is There a Relationship?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent preclinical data have raised the possibility that prepubertal treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with stimulant medication might increase risk for later depression. The current longitudinal study investigated whether children with ADHD who were treated with stimulant medication displayed heightened levels of adolescent depression. Adolescents diagnosed with ADHD during childhood who had received a minimum of 1 year of treatment with stimulant medication were compared to adolescents with a childhood history of ADHD who were never treated with stimulants and a demographically matched comparison group on self-reports of depressive symptoms and diagnoses of depressive disorders. Both subgroups with childhood ADHD reported significantly higher dimensional ratings of depression and categorical rates of depressive disorders relative to the comparison group (all p<0.05), yet those who were and were not medicated did not differ from one another. Results indicate that, while childhood ADHD increases risk for adolescent depression, stimulant treatment for ADHD neither heightens nor protects against such risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".