The effect of methylphenidate intake on brain structure in adults with ADHD in a placebo-controlled randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on animal research several authors have warned that the application of methylphenidate, the first-line drug for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), might have neurotoxic effects potentially harming the brain. We investigated whether methylphenidate application, over a 1-year period, results in cerebral volume decrease. METHODS: We acquired structural MRIs in a double-blind study comparing methylphenidate to placebo. Global and regional brain volumes were analyzed at baseline, after 3 months and after 12 months using diffeomorphic anatomic registration through exponentiated lie algebra. RESULTS: We included 131 adult patients with ADHD into the baseline sample, 98 into the 3-month sample (54 in the methylphenidate cohort and 44 in the placebo cohort) and 76 into the 1-year sample (37 in the methylphenidate cohort and 29 in the placebo cohort). Methylphenidate intake compared with placebo did not lead to any detectable cerebral volume loss; there was a trend toward bilateral cerebellar grey matter increase. LIMITATIONS: Detecting possible neurotoxic effects of methylphenidate might require a longer observation period. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence of grey matter volume loss after 1 year of methylphenidate treatment in adult patients with ADHD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".