Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Drugs and Growth: An Italian Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess the long-term effect of methylphenidate (MPH) or atomoxetine (ATX) on growth in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug-naïve children. DESIGN: The study was an observational, post-marketing, fourth phase study. METHODS: Data on height and weight were collected at baseline and every 6 months up to 24 months. RESULTS: Both ATX and MPH lead to decreased height gain (assessed by means of z-scores); the effect was significantly higher for ATX than for MPH. At any time, height z-score decrease in the ATX group was higher than the corresponding decrease observed in the MPH group, but the difference was significantly relevant only during the first year of treatment. An increment of average weight was observed both in patients treated with MPH and in those treated with ATX. However, using Tanner's percentile, a subset of patients showed a degree of growth lower than expected. This negative effect was significantly higher for ATX than for MPH. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that ADHD drugs show a negative effect on linear growth in children in middle term. Such effect appears more evident for ATX than for MPH.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".