What would you like to find today?

Background:

Despite recommendations for combined pharmacological and behavioral treatment in childhood ADHD, caregivers may avoid these options due to concerns about side effects or the stigma that still surrounds stimulant medications. Alternatives like psychosocial interventions and environmental changes are limited by questionable effectiveness for many patients. Increasingly, patients and caregivers are seeking other therapies, such as neuromodulation – particularly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). 

tDCS seeks to enhance neurocognitive function by modulating cognitive control circuits with low-intensity scalp currents. There is also evidence that tDCS can induce neuroplasticity. However, results for ADHD symptom improvement in children and adolescents are inconsistent. 

The Method:

To examine the evidence more rigorously, a Taiwanese research team conducted a systematic search focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested tDCS in children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They included only studies that used sham-tDCS as a control condition – an essential design feature that prevents participants from knowing whether they received the active treatment, thereby controlling for placebo effects. 

The Results:

Meta-analysis of five studies combining 141 participants found no improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. That held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex. There was no sign of publication bias, nor of variation (heterogeneity) in outcomes among the RCTs.  

Meta-analysis of six studies totaling 171 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms, hyperactivity symptoms, or impulsivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. Again, this held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, and there was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity. 

Most of the RCTs also performed follow-ups roughly a month after treatment, on the theory that induced neuroplasticity could lead to later improvements. 

Meta-analysis of four RCTs combining 118 participants found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. This held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity. 

Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 148 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. AS before, this was true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity. 

The only positive results came from meta-analysis of the same five studies, which reported a medium effect size improvement in impulsivity symptoms at follow-up. Closer examination showed no improvement from stimulation of the right prefrontal cortex, but a large effect size improvement from stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex. 

Interpretation: 

It is important to note that the one positive result was from three RCTs combining only 90 children and adolescents, a small sample size. Moreover, when only one of sixteen combinations yields a positive outcome, that begins to look like p-hacking for a positive result. 

In research, scientists use something called a “p-value” to determine if their findings are real or just due to chance. A p-value below 0.05 (or 5%) is considered “statistically significant,” meaning there's less than a 5% chance the result happened by pure luck. 

When testing twenty outcomes by this standard, one would expect one to test positive by chance even if there is no underlying association. In this case, one in 16 comes awfully close to that. 

To be sure, the research team straightforwardly reported all sixteen outcomes, but offered an arguably over-positive spin in their conclusion: “Our study only showed tDCS-associated impulsivity improvement in children/adolescents with ADHD during follow-ups and anode placement on the left PFC. ... our findings based on a limited number of available trials warrant further verification from large-scale clinical investigations.” 

‍

Children and adolescents with ADHD tend to be less active and more sedentary than their typically developing peers. This is concerning, since physical activity benefits mental, physical, and social development. For youth with ADHD, being active can improve symptoms like inattention, working memory, and inhibitory control. 

A major barrier to physical activity for children and adolescents with ADHD is limited motor competence. This stems from challenges in developing basic motor skills and more complex abilities needed for sports and advanced movements. 

Difficulties in developing fundamental movement skills – such as locomotor (running, jumping), object-control (throwing, catching), and stability skills (balancing, turning) – can reduce motor competence and limit physical activity. These basic movements are learned and refined with practice and age, not innate abilities. 

To date, research on the link between ADHD and motor competence has remained inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis by a Spanish research team therefore aimed to determine whether children and adolescents with ADHD differ in motor competence from those with typical development (TD). 

Studies had to include children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They had to involve a full motor assessment battery, not just one test, and present motor competence data for both ADHD and TD groups. 

The team excluded studies involving participants with other neurodevelopmental disorders or cognitive impairments, unless separate data for the ADHD subgroup were reported. 

Meta-analysis of six studies combining 323 children and adolescents found that typically developing individuals were twelve times more likely to score in the 5^th percentile of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children as their peers diagnosed with ADHD. They were also three times more likely to score in the 15^th percentile (five studies, 289 participants). Results were consistent across the studies (low heterogeneity). All included studies were randomized. 

Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 198 participants using the Test of Gross Motor Development reported significant deficits in both locomotor skills and object control skills among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD relative to their typically developing peers. In this case, however, results were inconsistent across studies (very high heterogeneity), and one of the studies was unrandomized. Because the team published only unstandardized mean differences, there was no indication of effect sizes. 

Meta-analysis of two studies encompassing 164 participants using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency similarly yielded significant deficits among children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD relative to their typically developing peers, but in this case with low heterogeneity. Notably, one of the two studies was not randomized. 

Moreover, the team made no assessment of publication bias. 

The team concluded, “The findings of this review indicate that children and adolescents with ADHD show significantly lower levels of motor competence compared to their TD peers. This trend was evident across a range of validated assessment tools, including the MABC, BOT, TGMD, and other standardized test batteries. Future research should aim to reduce methodological heterogeneity and further investigate the influence of factors such as ADHD subtypes and comorbid conditions on motor development trajectories.” 

However, without a publication bias assessment, reliance on unrandomized studies in two of the tests, no indication of effect size in the same two tests, and small sample sizes, these results are at best suggestive, and will require further research to confirm. 

‍

Executive function impairment is a key feature of ADHD, with its severity linked to the intensity of ADHD symptoms. Executive function involves managing complex cognitive tasks for organized behavior and includes three main areas: inhibitory control (suppressing impulsive actions), working memory (holding information briefly), and cognitive flexibility (switching between different mental tasks). Improving executive functions is a critical objective in the treatment of ADHD. 

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are commonly used to treat ADHD, but can cause side effects like reduced appetite, sleep problems, nausea, and headaches. Long-term use may also lead to stunted growth and cardiovascular issues. This encourages the search for non-invasive methods to enhance executive function in children with ADHD. 

Neurological techniques like neurofeedback and transcranial stimulation are increasingly used to treat children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurofeedback is the most adopted method; it is noninvasive and aims to improve brain function by providing real-time feedback on brainwave activity so participants can self-regulate targeted brain regions. 

The systematic search and meta-analysis examined children and adolescents aged 6–18 with ADHD. It included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, as well as quasi-experimental studies that reported statistical data such as participant numbers, means, and standard deviations. Studies were required to use validated measures of executive function, including neurocognitive tasks or questionnaires. They also had to have control groups. 

A meta-analysis of ten studies (539 participants) found a small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control after neurofeedback training, with no publication bias and minimal study heterogeneity*. Long-term treatment (over 21 hours) showed benefits, while short-term treatment did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed. 

A meta-analysis of seven studies with 370 children and adolescents found a small-to-medium improvement in working memory after neurofeedback, with no publication bias overall but high heterogeneity. A dose-response effect was observed: treatments over 21 hours showed benefits, while shorter ones did not. However, publication bias was present in the long-term treatment studies and was not addressed. 

The study team also looked at sustained effects six months to a year after conclusion of training. Meta-analysis of two studies totaling 131 participants found a sustained small-to-medium improvement in inhibitory control, with negligible heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of three studies combining 182 participants found a sustained medium improvement in working memory, with moderate heterogeneity and no sign of publication bias. 

The team concluded, “NFT is an effective intervention for improving executive function in children with ADHD, specifically inhibitory control and working memory. This approach demonstrates a more pronounced impact on working memory when extended beyond 1000 min [sic], with inhibitory control following closely behind. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that NFT may have sustained effects on both working memory and inhibitory control. Given the relatively small number of studies assessing long-term effects and the potential for publication bias, further research is necessary to confirm these effects.” 

Moreover, because 1) RCTs are the gold standard, and the meta-analyses combined RCTs with non-RCTs, and 2) data from neurocognitive tasks was combined with data from more subjective and less accurate questionnaires, these meta-analysis results should be interpreted with further caution. 

‍

‍

*Heterogeneity refers to the rate of variation between individual study outcomes. High heterogeneity means that there was substantial variation in the results. When a meta-anaylysis has high heterogeneity, it suggests that the studies differ significantly in their populations, methods, interventions, or outcomes, making the combined result much less reliable.

‍

Many news outlets have reported an increase – or surge – in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, diagnoses in both children and adults. At the same time, health care providers, teachers and school systems have reported an uptick in requests for ADHD assessments.

These reports have led some experts and parents to wonder whether ADHD is being overdiagnosed and overtreated.

As researchers who have spent our careers studying neurodevelopmental disorders like ADHD, we are concerned that fears about widespread overdiagnosis are misplaced, perhaps based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the condition.

Understanding ADHD as a spectrum:

Discussions about overdiagnosis of ADHD imply that you either have it or you don’t.

However, when epidemiologists ask people in the general population about their symptoms of ADHD, some have a few symptoms, some have a moderate level, and a few have lots of symptoms. But there is no clear dividing line between those who are diagnosed with ADHD and those who are not, since ADHD – much like blood pressure – occurs on a spectrum.

Treating mild ADHD is similar to treating mild high blood pressure – it depends on the situation. Care can be helpful when a doctor considers the details of a person’s daily life and how much the symptoms are affecting them.

Not only can ADHD symptoms be very different from person to person, but research shows that ADHD symptoms can change within an individual. For example, symptoms become more severe when the challenges of life increase.

ADHD symptoms fluctuate depending on many factors, including whether the person is at school or home, whether they have had enough sleep, if they are under a great deal of stress or if they are taking medications or other substances. Someone who has mild ADHD may not experience many symptoms while they are on vacation and well rested, for example, but they may have impairing symptoms if they have a demanding job or school schedule and have not gotten enough sleep. These people may need treatment for ADHD in certain situations but may do just fine without treatment in other situations.

This is similar to what is seen in conditions like high blood pressure, which can change from day to day or from month to month, depending on a person’s diet, stress level and many other factors.

Can ADHD symptoms change over time?

ADHD symptoms start in early childhood and typically are at their worst in mid-to late childhood. Thus, the average age of diagnosis is between 9 and 12 years old. This age is also the time when children are transitioning from elementary school to middle school and may also be experiencing changes in their environment that make their symptoms worse.

Classes can be more challenging beginning around fifth grade than in earlier grades. In addition, the transition to middle school typically means that children move from having all their subjects taught by one teacher in a single classroom to having to change classrooms with a different teacher for each class. These changes can exacerbate symptoms that were previously well-controlled. Symptoms can also wax and wane throughout life.

Psychiatric problems that often co-occur with ADHD, such as anxiety or depression, can worsen ADHD symptoms that are already present. These conditions can also mimic ADHD symptoms, making it difficult to know which to treat. High levels of stress leading to poorer sleep, and increased demands at work or school, can also exacerbate or cause ADHD-like symptoms.

Finally, the use of some substances, such as marijuana or sedatives, can worsen, or even cause, ADHD symptoms. In addition to making symptoms worse in someone who already has an ADHD diagnosis, these factors can also push someone who has mild symptoms into full-blown ADHD, at least for a short time.

The reverse is also true: Symptoms of ADHD can be minimized or reversed in people who do not meet full diagnostic criteria once the external cause is removed.

How prevalence is determined:

Clinicians diagnose ADHD based on symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. To make an ADHD diagnosis in children, six or more symptoms in at least one of these three categories must be present. For adults, five or more symptoms are required, but they must begin in childhood. For all ages, the symptoms must cause serious problems in at least two areas of life, such as home, school or work.

Current estimates show that the strict prevalence of ADHD is about 5% in children. In young adults, the figure drops to 3%, and it is less than 1% after age 60. Researchers use the term “strict prevalence” to mean the percentage of people who meet all of the criteria for ADHD based on epidemiological studies. It is an important number because it provides clinicians and scientists with an estimate on how many people are expected to have ADHD in a given group of people.

In contrast, the “diagnosed prevalence” is the percentage of people who have been diagnosed with ADHD based on real-world assessments by health care professionals. The diagnosed prevalence in the U.S. and Canada ranges from 7.5% to 11.1% in children under age 18. These rates are quite a bit higher than the strict prevalence of 5%.

Some researchers claim that the difference between the diagnosed prevalence and the strict prevalence means that ADHD is overdiagnosed.

We disagree. In clinical practice, the diagnostic rules allow a patient to be diagnosed with ADHD if they have most of the symptoms that cause distress, impairment or both, even when they don’t meet the full criteria. And much evidence shows that increases in the diagnostic prevalence can be attributed to diagnosing milder cases that may have been missed previously. The validity of these mild diagnoses is well-documented.

Consider children who have five inattentive symptoms and five hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. These children would not meet strict diagnostic criteria for ADHD even though they clearly have a lot of ADHD symptoms. But in clinical practice, these children would be diagnosed with ADHD if they had marked distress, disability or both because of their symptoms – in other words, if the symptoms were interfering substantially with their everyday lives.

So it makes sense that the diagnosed prevalence of ADHD is substantially higher than the strict prevalence.

Implications for patients, parents and clinicians:

People who are concerned about overdiagnosis commonly worry that people are taking medications they don’t need or that they are diverting resources away from those who need it more. Other concerns are that people may experience side effects from the medications, or that they may be stigmatized by a diagnosis.

Those concerns are important. However, there is strong evidence that underdiagnosis and undertreatment of ADHD lead to serious negative outcomes in school, work, mental health and quality of life.

In other words, the risks of not treating ADHD are well-established. In contrast, the potential harms of overdiagnosis remain largely unproven.

It is important to consider how to manage the growing number of milder cases, however. Research suggests that children and adults with less severe ADHD symptoms may benefit less from medication than those with more severe symptoms.

This raises an important question: How much benefit is enough to justify treatment? These are decisions best made in conversations between clinicians, patients and caregivers.

Because ADHD symptoms can shift with age, stress, environment and other life circumstances, treatment needs to be flexible. For some, simple adjustments like classroom seating changes, better sleep or reduced stress may be enough. For others, medication, behavior therapy, or a combination of these interventions may be necessary. The key is a personalized approach that adapts as patients’ needs evolve over time.

‍

Executive function impairment is a key feature of ADHD, with its severity linked to the intensity of ADHD symptoms. Executive function involves managing complex cognitive tasks for organized behavior and includes three main areas: inhibitory control (suppressing impulsive actions), working memory (holding information briefly), and cognitive flexibility (switching between different mental tasks). Improving executive functions is a critical objective in the management of ADHD. 

Recent studies show that exercise interventions can enhance executive function in individuals with ADHD. Unlike traditional medications, which are costly and may cause side effects such as headaches, nausea, or growth issues, exercise can be incorporated into daily routines of children and adolescents without negative reactions. 

Some studies report that aerobic exercise does not significantly improve executive function. However, most past reviews of aerobic exercise effects on executive function have focused on people without ADHD, with few examining interventions for children or adolescents with ADHD. 

The Study:

A Chinese and South Korean study team conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed published literature to perform meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically focused on aerobic exercise interventions for children and adolescents with ADHD. 

All studies included were randomized controlled trials involving participants aged 6 to 18 years who had been clinically diagnosed with ADHD. The interventions consisted of various forms of aerobic exercise, while the control groups engaged in either non-exercise activities or daily routines. Each study was required to report at least one outcome measure with usable data for calculating the effect size on executive functioning. 

The Results:

Meta-analysis of fifteen RCTs combining 653 children and adolescents with ADHD reported a medium to large effect size improvement in inhibitory control. There was no sign of publication bias, but wide heterogeneity (variation) in outcomes among studies.  

Six to eight weeks of aerobic exercise produced modest improvements, with much greater gains seen after twelve weeks. Hour-long sessions were as effective as longer ones. Moderate intensity exercise proved more beneficial than vigorous intensity. 

Meta-analysis of eight RCTs combining 399 children and adolescents with ADHD produced a medium effect size improvement in working memory. There was no sign of publication bias, and heterogeneity was moderate. 

Once again, six to eight weeks of aerobic exercise produced modest improvements, with much greater gains seen after twelve weeks. Hour-long sessions were as effective as longer ones. But in this case moderate-to-vigorous intensity yielded the best results. 

Meta-analysis of ten RCTs combining 443 children and adolescents with ADHD was associated with a medium to large effect size improvement in cognitive flexibility. There was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity. Neither the length of treatment, session time, or intensity affected the outcome. 

The Take-Away:

The team concluded, “Our study indicates that aerobic exercise interventions have a positive impact with a moderate effect size on inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility in children and adolescents with ADHD. However, the effectiveness of the intervention is influenced by factors such as the intervention period, frequency, session durations, intensity, and the choice between acute or chronic exercise. Specifically, chronic aerobic exercise interventions lasting 12 weeks or longer, with a frequency of 3 to 5 sessions per week, session durations of 60 min or more, and intensities that are moderate or moderate-to-vigorous, have the greatest overall effect… caution should be exercised when interpreting these findings due to the significant heterogeneity in inhibitory control and working memory.” 

‍

Vitamins play important roles in metabolism, immune regulation, and neurodevelopment. Recent studies show that deficiencies in vitamins like D, B6, B12, and folate are common in people with ADHD and ASD (autism spectrum disorder), and are associated with behavioral, cognitive, and brain development issues. 

The Study:

A study team based in China has just performed a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to perform meta-analyses of clinical trials exploring vitamin interventions in the treatment of ADHD and ASD.  

ADHD trials included participants with an official diagnosis. The primary intervention was vitamin supplements, while other treatments, including medications, remained unchanged or were excluded during the study period. ADHD outcomes included measurable changes in ADHD symptoms using validated rating scales and executive function measures. 

Eligible studies included standard or sham control groups, crossover, parallel, or other clinical trial designs. In crossover studies, only first-phase data were analyzed to prevent carryover effects. 

Ten trials with 852 participants met the standards, but meta-analysis showed no significant results. The outcomes varied widely, suggesting a need to distinguish among vitamins. 

Results:

Of the five trials involving 347 participants that specifically evaluated vitamin D supplementation, results indicated a large effect size improvement in ADHD symptoms and executive function measures. The other five studies did not show any observable improvement. 

Key limitations include: 

• Vitamin D supplementation studies were not separately assessed. 

• High heterogeneity persisted in study outcomes, likely due to varying study designs. 

• Participant numbers were relatively small. 

The team concluded, “This meta-analysis supports the use of vitamin supplementation as a promising adjunctive treatment for ASD and ADHD. Vitamin B showed greater benefits in improving symptoms of ASD, while vitamin D was more effective in managing ADHD-related behaviors. These findings suggest that specific vitamins may target disorder-specific symptoms. Despite limitations such as the lack of trials on other vitamins and limited understanding of underlying mechanisms, vitamin therapy remains a low-cost, accessible option.” 

An important limitation of this work is that the positive results for vitamin D were due to two studies from Iran.  So far, no positive study has emerged from a non-Iranian study.

Interpretation: 

The vitamin D findings are intriguing and could be important if replicated outside of Iran. Since supplementation is already widely recommended to those with limited sunlight exposure, clinicians may want to consider monitoring their patients’ vitamin D intake, especially in the winter months. It should be noted, however, that due to the limitations of this study, the results are by no means conclusive, and vitamin D should not be taken as a stand-alone treatment for ADHD. 

‍

Claims-based real-world data can reveal population-level trends in health among people with neurodevelopmental disorders. This new study examined the prevalence, demographics, and chronic comorbidities of adults and of children and adolescents with ADHD in a large national health plan. It also compared healthcare use and costs between those with and without ADHD. 

A research team in the United States conducted an observational cohort study using claims data from more than 1.9 million adults and nearly 500,000 children and adolescents, comparing individuals diagnosed with ADHD to those without the diagnosis. 

ADHD was diagnosed in 4% of adults and in 5% of children and adolescents. 

Comorbidities By The Numbers: 

Disruptive childhood disorders are behavioral problems marked by ongoing defiance, uncooperativeness, and aggression that affect a child's daily life and relationships. The main types, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD), involve persistent anger and argumentativeness in ODD, and more severe actions like aggression, cruelty, and criminal behavior in CD. Without treatment, these common childhood disorders can continue into adulthood and raise the risks of substance use, violence, incarceration, and early death. 

Disruptive childhood disorders were twenty times more frequent among children and adolescents with ADHD than among those without ADHD diagnosis, and fifteen times more frequent among adults with ADHD. 

Bipolar disorder was twelve times more common among children and adolescents with ADHD than those without ADHD, and seven times more common among adults with ADHD. 

Schizophrenia was eleven times more prevalent among children and adolescents with ADHD than those without ADHD, and three-and-a-half times more common among adults with ADHD. 

Anxiety was nine times more frequent among children and adolescents with ADHD than among those without ADHD diagnosis, and more than five times more frequent among adults with ADHD. 

Depression was eight times more common among children and adolescents with ADHD than those without ADHD, and more than five times more common among adults with ADHD. 

Suicidal ideation was eight times more prevalent, and suicide attempt seven times more prevalent, among children and adolescents with ADHD than those without ADHD. Both suicidal ideation and suicide attempt were five times more common among adults with ADHD. 

Gender dysphoria was almost six times more frequent among children and adolescents with ADHD than among those without ADHD diagnosis, and five times more frequent among adults with ADHD.  

Eating disorders were over four times more common among children and adolescents with ADHD than those without ADHD, and five times more common among adults with ADHD. 

Substance-related disorders were over six times more prevalent, and alcohol use disorder was six times more prevalent among children and adolescents with ADHD than those without ADHD, and four and three times more prevalent among adults with ADHD. 

Increased Costs of Medical Care:

These comorbidities and ADHD led to higher medical costs. Children and adolescents with ADHD spent $610 more annually on healthcare than those without, while adults with ADHD had $1,684 higher average yearly expenditures than non-ADHD adults. 

The Take-Away:

This large claims-based analysis of a national commercial insurer found ADHD diagnoses in roughly 4% of adults and 5% of children. It documented substantially higher rates of co-occurring behavioral-health conditions and markedly greater healthcare utilization and expenditures among those with ADHD. The authors report increased odds for several co-occurring diagnoses, as well as higher per-member-per-month (PMPM) spending and per-thousand-per-month (PTPM) utilization, largely driven by greater use of behavioral health services. 

Importantly, these results come from cross-sectional, claims data within a commercially insured population: they describe associations, not causal relationships, and may not generalize to uninsured, publicly insured, or otherwise different populations. These findings, therefore, warrant cautious interpretation and highlight the need for longitudinal and more representative studies to clarify drivers of the increased burden and to inform care and policy.

‍

Background: 

Since the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1978, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has led to over 10 million births worldwide.  

There are four types of embryo transfers, depending on whether they are fresh or frozen, and on their developmental stage. 

Fresh cleavage stage embryos are transferred on day 2 or 3 following fertilization and typically contain four to eight relatively large, undifferentiated cells. Fresh blastocyst embryos are transferred on day 5 or 6 after fertilization. At this point, they have developed over a hundred cells and have differentiated into two types: the inner cell mass, which develops into the fetus, and the outer cell layer, which forms the placenta. 

Globally, more children are now born through assisted reproductive technology using frozen-thawed embryo transfer than fresh embryo transfer.  

Research suggests that ART-conceived offspring may face increased risks of cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, chromosomal, urogenital diseases, and cancers. Might they also be at increased risk for ADHD? 

Study:

Taiwan’s single-payer health insurance covers over 99% of people and records all their healthcare activity. Since 1998, it has kept an ART database for all couples registered for IVF treatment. 

A Taiwanese research team reviewed all records for the five-year period from 2013 through 2017, ultimately analyzing 3,125 live singleton births from fresh cleavage stages, 1,332 from fresh blastocysts, 1,465 from frozen cleavage stages, and 4,708 from frozen blastocysts, alongside 878,643 naturally conceived singleton births. 

The team controlled for the following potential confounders: pregnancy-induced hypertension, chronic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, gestational diabetes mellitus, unhealthy lifestyle, placenta previa, placenta abruption, preterm premature rupture of membrane, and postpartum hemorrhage. 

Results:

With these adjustments, cleavage stage embryo transfers, whether fresh or frozen, were associated with a seven-fold higher rate of ADHD diagnosis in offspring than natural conception. 

Frozen blastocyst embryo transfers were likewise linked to a seven-fold increase in ADHD diagnoses in offspring compared to natural conception. Notably, fresh blastocyst transfers showed a 19-fold increase, likely due to the smaller number of cases in this category. 

The team concluded, “Compared to natural conception, ART is associated with higher risks, particularly for preterm birth, ADHD, and developmental delay.” 

Conclusion: 

This large national cohort suggests that ART-conceived singletons face higher rates of several adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, ADHD, and developmental delay. Clinicians and prospective parents should therefore weigh these potential associations when counseling and planning care, prioritize optimized ART protocols and perinatal management, and ensure early developmental surveillance for ART-conceived children so concerns can be identified and addressed promptly.

It is important to note that the findings also point to the likely contribution of underlying parental infertility in these developmental outcomes. Future research should aim to disentangle parental- versus procedure-related risks to clarify absolute risk magnitudes. As always, associations of this time should not be interpreted as causal due to the inability of observational studies to rule out all possible confounding factors.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental conditions, yet many young people, especially girls, receive a diagnosis late or not at all. This matters, because a delayed diagnosis often means missed opportunities for support, treatment, and improved long-term outcomes. A recent study by Barclay and colleagues (2024) sheds new light on why ADHD recognition is inconsistent, and what we can do about it.

The Study:

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 10,000 children in the UK Millennium Cohort Study. They compared children whose ADHD was recognized early (ages 5–7), later (ages 11–14), or not recognized at all, despite evidence of symptoms. The team also looked at differences between boys and girls to better understand why diagnosis patterns vary by sex.

Key Findings:

1. Severity Drives Earlier Recognition
   Children who were diagnosed at a younger age often had more visible difficulties: emotional outbursts, peer conflict, conduct issues, and lower cognitive scores. In other words, the “louder” and more disruptive the symptoms, the more likely ADHD was flagged early.
   
   
2. “Quieter” ADHD May Be Overlooked
   Children with stronger prosocial skills or higher cognitive ability were less likely to be recognized, even if they had clear ADHD symptoms. These children may be able to “mask” their difficulties, or adults may misinterpret their struggles as personality quirks rather than signs of ADHD.
   
   
3. Emotional Dysregulation Matters
   Emotional dysregulation—big swings in mood, difficulty calming down, intense frustration—was strongly linked to recognized ADHD in boys, but not in girls. This suggests that clinicians may pay closer attention to these behaviors in boys, while overlooking them in girls.
   
   
4. Co-occurring Conditions Can Influence Diagnosis
   Children with autism were more likely to have their ADHD identified. On the flip side, those who engaged in more physical activity were slightly less likely to be recognized, though the reasons for this are not yet clear.
   
   

What This Means for Clinicians:

The study highlights the importance of looking beyond the “classic” hyperactive child stereotype when considering ADHD. Clinicians should:

• Pay attention to symptoms of emotional dysregulation, even if they are not part of standard diagnostic checklists.
  
  
• Consider ADHD in children with good grades or strong social skills if other symptoms are present.
  
  
• Be mindful of gender differences, since girls may be more likely to internalize symptoms or present with inattentiveness rather than hyperactivity.
  
  

What This Means for Parents and Patients:

If you’re a parent, it’s important to trust your observations. If your child struggles with focus, organization, or emotional regulation—even if they are doing well academically or socially—these could still be signs of ADHD. Advocating for an evaluation can make a big difference.

Moving Forward

This study makes clear that ADHD is not one-size-fits-all. Recognition often depends on how symptoms show up, how disruptive they appear, and even the child’s gender. By broadening our awareness and refining our screening practices, we can ensure that fewer children slip through the cracks and more receive the support they need early in life.

‍

Parents and teachers often ask: Does ADHD medication actually improve grades and school performance? The answer is: yes, but with important limitations. Medications are very effective at reducing inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity but their impact on long-term academic outcomes like grades and test scores is not as consistent.

‍

In the Classroom

The medications for ADHD consistently: Improve attention, reduce classroom disruptions, increase time spent on-task and help children complete more schoolwork and homework. Medication can help children with ADHD access learning by improving the conditions for paying attention and persisting with work.

‍

Does Medication Improve Test Scores and Grades?

This is where the picture gets more complicated.  Medications have  stronger effect on how much work is completed but a weaker effect on accuracy. Many studies show that children on medication attempt more problems in reading, math, and spelling, but the number of correct answers doesn’t always improve as much. Some studies find small but significant improvements in national exam scores and higher education entrance tests during periods when children with ADHD are medicated.

Grades improve, as well, but modestly. Large registry studies in Sweden show that students who consistently take medication earn higher grades than those who don’t. However, these gains usually do not close the achievement gap with peers who do not have ADHD.

Keep in mind that small improvements for a group as a whole mean that some children are benefiting greatly from medication and others not at all.  We have no way of predicting which children will improve and which do not. 

‍

Medication Alone Isn’t Enough

Academic success depends on more than just reducing inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Skills like organization, planning, studying, and managing long-term projects are also critical.  Medication cannot teach these skills.

So, in addition to medication, the patient's treatment program should include educational support (tutoring, structured study skills programs), behavioral interventions (parent training, classroom management strategies), and accommodations at school (extra time, reduced distractions, organizational aids) Parents should discuss with their prescriber which of these methods would be appropriate.

‍

Conclusions 

ADHD medication is a powerful tool for reducing symptoms and supporting learning. It improves test scores and grades for some children, especially when taken consistently. But it is not a magic bullet for academic success. The best results come when medication is combined with educational and behavioral supports that help children build the skills they need to thrive in school and beyond.

‍