Potential Social and Neurocognitive Benefits of Aerobic Exercise as Adjunct Treatment for Patients With ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the article is to review the evidence that aerobic exercise may be a useful adjunct treatment for ADHD. Method: Studies on physical, cognitive, and psychosocial aspects of aerobic exercise that are relevant to ADHD are reviewed and evaluated. Results: Stimulant medication, the main pharmacotherapy for ADHD, and aerobic exercise both act on catecholamine pathways. Aerobic exercise has been shown to be beneficial in preclinical studies on spontaneous hypertensive rats, an animal model of ADHD, and in clinical trials of children with ADHD, as an adjunct treatment to medication. Social and neurocognitive function in children and adults seem to be positively affected by exercise as well. Nevertheless, no controlled clinical trials in adults with ADHD have been conducted. Conclusion: Aerobic exercise may be a useful non-medication adjunct therapy for ADHD. The clinical effectiveness of aerobic exercise for ADHD in children and adults warrants further clinical studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".