Treatments in the pipeline for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide an overview of treatments in the pipeline for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/and and https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ from 01/01/2010-10/18/2023 for ongoing or completed phase 2 or 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), assessing pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for adults with ADHD with no current regulatory approval. We found 90 eligible RCTs. Of these, 24 (27 %) reported results with statistical analysis for primary efficacy endpoints. While several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions had evidence of superiority compared to the control condition from a single RCT, centanafadine (norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin re-uptake inhibitor) was the only treatment with evidence of efficacy on ADHD core symptoms (small effect size=0.28-0.40) replicated in at least one additional RCT, alongside reasonable tolerability. Overall, the body of ongoing RCTs in adults with ADHD is insufficient, without any intervention on the horizon to match the efficacy of stimulant treatment or atomoxetine and with better tolerability profile. Additional effective and well tolerated treatments for adults with ADHD require development and testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".