Cardiovascular Effects of Drugs Used to Treat Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Part 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of psychostimulant and nonpsychostimulant medications have proven to be successful in reducing inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Psychostimulants used to treat ADHD include methylphenidate and related drugs and various amphetamine preparations. Nonpsychostimulant medications used to treat ADHD include atomoxetine and 2 α-2 adrenergic agonists: guanfacine extended-release and clonidine extended-release. The psychostimulants and atomoxetine have been shown, on average, to increase heart rate by 3-10 beats/min, systolic blood pressure by 3-8 mm Hg, and diastolic BP by 2-14 mm Hg. These drugs may also delay ventricular repolarization. The α-2 adrenergic agonists may reduce heart rate and BP. For these reasons, there is concern about the safety of psychostimulant and nonpsychostimulant medications in patients with ADHD. Studies in healthy children adolescents and adults have not consistently shown a disproportionately high risk of major adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, including sudden unexpected death. Those with underlying CV disease have, in general, tolerated these drugs well. Certain high-risk groups have been identified who may benefit from cardiology consultation prior to drug initiation. Several American and Canadian professional societies have published guidelines for CV evaluation, management, and monitoring of patients with ADHD who are candidates for pharmacotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".