The Use of Methylphenidate for Cognitive Enhancement in Young Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Methylphenidate (MP), a drug of choice for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is a federally restricted substance CII in the United States because of abuse and dependence, and similar restrictions are practiced in Canada and around the world. This designation is given to drugs with medical value that present a high potential for abuse. In view of these severe restrictions, it is concerning to find out that a large group of healthy young adults, at least as large as the ADHD group of patients, take MP for cognitive enhancement, in an attempt to improve their academic achievements during studies and examinations. These young adults buy MP illegally and consume it without any medical supervision. The objective of the present debate piece is to present the ethical and clinical issues that need to be addressed in an attempt to solve this dilemma. METHODS: The issues presented here are systematically reviewed and discussed along the following lines: MP effectiveness in enhancing cognitive achievements in healthy people; "As these are normal healthy people, what is the duty of physicians to 'treat' them?"; potential benefits of cognitive enhancement to healthy people; the risks of MP; "How do these young people get their MP?"; and "What can be done?" RESULTS: Methylphenidate is widely used for cognitive enhancement without medical supervision. The effectiveness of MP for cognitive enhancement is well documented along a dose-response curve. Congruent with the results of the randomized trials, repeated studies based on interviews suggest that numerous young people report that cognitive enhancement helps them in improving their academic achievements, and hence also improve their feeling of well-being. Presently, most regulatory and medical organizations limit the use of MP to ADHD and narcolepsy. Yet, the American Academy of Neurology ruled that there is a moral, ethical, and legal basis to prescribe the drug for cognitive enhancement. The drug has known dose-dependent adverse effects that can have serious ramifications and may often lead to poor adherence. The relative risk of MP causing sudden death/arrhythmia is 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.07), and there are estimated 20 million college and university students in the United States in 2020. The rate of sudden death/arrhythmias in this age group ranges between 1 and 10 per 100,000. This translates to an excess of 146 deaths caused by MP every year in the United States considering postsecondary students only. DISCUSSION: We propose that an ethical-clinical debate should be followed by an action plan to ensure that the present reality of millions of young people taking unsupervised MP is not accepted as a force majeure that cannot be changed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".