Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
March 31, 2026
ADHD is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in children, yet anyone familiar with this disorder, from clinicians and researchers to parents and patients, knows how differently it can manifest from one individual to the next. One person diagnosed with ADHD may primarily struggle with focus and staying on-task; another may find it nearly impossible to regulate their impulses or even start tasks; a third may frequently find themselves frozen with overwhelm and subject to emotional reactivity…
These are not just variations in severity; they may reflect genuinely different patterns of brain organization.
Our current diagnostic system groups all of these presentations under a single label (ADHD), with three behavioral subtypes (Hyperactive, Inattentive, and Combined) defined by symptom checklists. This framework has real clinical value of course, but it was built from behavioral observation rather than neurobiology, and may leave room for substantial heterogeneity to remain unexplained. In a new study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, researchers asked whether it’s possible to identify distinct neurobiologically subgroups within ADHD by analyzing patterns of brain structure, and whether those subgroups would map onto meaningful clinical differences.
How the Brain Was Analyzed
Researchers analyzed structural MRI scans from 446 children with ADHD and 708 typically-developing children across multiple research sites. From each scan, they constructed a morphometric similarity network; that is, a map of how different brain regions resemble one another in their structural properties. These networks reflect underlying biological organization, including shared patterns of cellular architecture and gene expression across brain regions.
From each individual's network, the research team calculated three properties that capture how each brain region functions within the broader network: how many connections it has, how efficiently it communicates with other regions, and how well it bridges different functional communities in the brain. Regions that score highly on these measures are sometimes called "hubs" and they play particularly influential roles in how information is integrated across the brain.
Rather than comparing the ADHD group to controls as a whole and looking for average differences, they used a normative modeling approach. This works similarly to a growth chart in pediatric medicine: instead of asking whether a child is above or below the group average, it asks how much a given child deviates from the expected range for their age and sex. This allows for individual variation across the ADHD group rather than flattening it into a single average profile.
The team then applied a data-driven clustering algorithm to these individual deviation profiles, allowing the data to reveal whether subgroups of children with ADHD shared similar patterns of brain network atypicality, without using any clinical symptom information to guide the clustering.
The Results:
Three stable, reproducible subtypes emerged from this analysis.
The first subtype was characterized by the most widespread differences from the normative range, particularly in regions connecting the medial prefrontal cortex to the pallidum (a deep brain structure involved in motivation and emotional regulation). Children in this group had the highest levels of both inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, and over a four-year follow-up period showed more persistent difficulties with emotional self-regulation than the other groups. They also had a higher rate of mood disorder comorbidity during follow-up, though this difference did not reach statistical significance given the sample size. The brain deviation patterns of this subtype showed correspondence with the spatial distributions of several neurotransmitter systems, including serotonin, dopamine, and acetylcholine, all of which have been previously implicated in ADHD pathophysiology.
The second subtype showed alterations concentrated in the anterior cingulate cortex and pallidum, a circuit involved in action control and response selection. This subtype had a predominantly hyperactive/impulsive profile, and its brain deviation patterns were associated with glutamate and cannabinoid receptor distributions.
The third subtype showed more focal differences in the superior frontal gyrus, a region involved in sustained attention. This subtype had a predominantly inattentive profile, with brain patterns linked to a specific serotonin receptor subtype.
A particularly important observation was that these brain-derived groupings aligned with clinically meaningful symptom differences, even though no symptom information was used in the clustering process. The fact that an analysis of brain structure alone arrived at groupings that correspond to recognizable clinical patterns is meaningful evidence that these subtypes reflect genuine neurobiological differences rather than statistical noise.
Replication in an Independent Sample
Scientific findings are only as trustworthy as their ability to replicate. The research team tested this clustering model in an entirely independent cohort of 554 children with ADHD from the Healthy Brain Network, a large, publicly available dataset collected under different conditions. The three subtypes were successfully identified in this new sample, with strong correlations between the brain deviation patterns observed in the original and validation cohorts. Differences in hyperactivity/impulsivity across subtypes were consistent with the discovery cohort, providing meaningful external validation of the approach.
What This Does and Doesn't Mean
It is important to be clear about what these findings do and do not imply. This study does not establish that these three subtypes are categorically distinct biological entities with sharp boundaries. They probably represent distinguishable regions along an underlying continuum of neurobiological variation. The neurochemical associations reported are exploratory and spatial in nature; they describe correspondences between brain deviation maps and neurotransmitter receptor density maps derived from separate imaging studies, and do not directly establish that any particular neurotransmitter system is altered in each subtype, nor do they currently inform treatment decisions.
The samples were not entirely medication-naive, and the strict comorbidity exclusion criteria may limit how well these findings generalize to typical clinical populations where comorbidities are the rule rather than the exception. All data came from research sites in the United States and China, and broader generalizability remains to be established.
What the study does demonstrate is that structured neurobiological heterogeneity exists within the ADHD diagnosis, that it can be reliably detected using brain imaging and data-driven methods, and that it aligns with meaningful clinical differences. The subtype defined by the most extensive brain network differences and the most severe, persistent clinical profile may be of particular importance, representing a group that could benefit most from early identification and targeted support.
The longer-term goal of this line of research is to move toward a more biologically grounded understanding of ADHD that complements existing diagnostic approaches and that may ultimately help guide more individualized treatment decisions. That goal, for now, remains a research ambition rather than a clinical reality, but this study takes a meaningful step in that direction.
Pan N, Long Y, Qin K, et al. Mapping ADHD Heterogeneity and Biotypes by Topological Deviations in Morphometric Similarity Networks. JAMA Psychiatry. Published online February 25, 2026. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2026.0001
Centanafadine, which is currently under investigation as a treatment for ADHD, will be the first triple reuptake inhibitor for the disorder if it is approved by the FDA. It improves norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin levels. This new medication is not a stimulant, but due to the dopamine component, it has a stimulant-like effect in patients. In adults, two phase 3 trials and a year-long extension have shown sustained benefits and a tolerable safety profile, laying the groundwork for pediatric research.
Based on this study, improvement was already noticeable after the first week and held steady through week 6. The lower dose (164.4 mg) didn’t separate from placebo, reminding us that getting the dose right will be critical. The effect size was smaller than what is seen for stimulants but 50% of patients had excellent outcomes as indicated by reductions in the ADHD-RS of 50% or more.
Side effect patterns look familiar to anyone who prescribes ADHD medications; loss of appetite, nausea and headaches topped the list. About half of teens on the higher dose reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with a quarter of those on placebo. Severe reactions were rare but did include isolated liver enzyme spikes, rash, and a few reports of aggression or somnolence. For everyday practice, that translates to routine growth checks, a look at baseline liver function, and clear guidance to families about reporting rashes or mood changes promptly.
The researchers noted that the study had certain limitations, including limited generalizability to adolescents beyond North America, the exclusion of teacher ratings on the ADHD-RS-5 scale and the study’s short duration. They added that future studies should explore long-term treatment outcomes and efficacy compared with other ADHD treatments, as well as its effect on treating ADHD with comorbid conditions.
First, speed. Centanafadine separated from placebo within a week. In this regard, it might be closer to stimulants than to the multi-week ramp-up we expect from current non-stimulants. Second, it offers another option when stimulants are contraindicated or poorly tolerated, or when they raise diversion concerns. Its mechanism also makes it intriguing for patients who need both norepinephrine and dopamine coverage but prefer to avoid schedule II drugs. Because it also improves serotonergic transmission, it may be useful for some of ADHD’s comorbidities (see our new article for evidence about serotonin’s role in these disorders).
Keep in mind that centanafadine for ADHD is still investigational, so participation in clinical trials remains the only access route.
.png)
This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD.
The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist
The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion.
Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.
The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time
The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.
The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn
The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational.
For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”
The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.
The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed.
For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary
habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.
Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.
The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death.
The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.
Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.
In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.
.png)
The Neuroeconomic Perspective
Neuroeconomics combines neuroscience, psychology, and economics to understand how people make decisions. Neuroeconomic studies suggest that brain regions responsible for evaluating risk and reward, including the prefrontal cortex and dopamine pathways, function differently in individuals with ADHD. These insights are crucial for developing more tailored interventions. For example, understanding how ADHD affects reward processing might inform strategies that help individuals resist impulsive choices or increase motivation for delayed rewards.
Understanding Decision-Making in ADHD
We know that decision-making is a sophisticated process involving various cognitive procedures. It’s not just about choosing between options but also about how to weigh risks, rewards, and potential future outcomes; Attention, motivation, and cognitive control are core to this process. For individuals with ADHD, however, this neural framework is affected by impairments in attention and impulse control, often resulting in “delay discounting”—the tendency to prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed ones.
This propensity for impulsive decisions is more than a personal challenge; it has broader societal and economic implications. Previous studies have shown that these tendencies in ADHD can lead to issues in academics, work, finances, and personal relationships, emphasizing the need for targeted support and interventions.
Implications and Future Directions
This review highlights a need for continued research to bridge the gaps in understanding how ADHD-specific cognitive deficits influence decision-making. Viewing ADHD through a neuroeconomic lens clarifies how cognitive and neural differences affect decision-making, often leading to impulsive choices with economic and social impacts. This perspective opens doors to more effective interventions, improving decision-making for individuals with ADHD. Future policies informed by this approach could enhance support and reduce associated societal costs.
The Background:
Management of ADHD relies on both medications and non-medication approaches. Clinical guidelines often recommend medication as the first-line treatment for adults, while non-medication interventions are often preferred for children. Medicines fall into two main groups: stimulants (for example, methylphenidate and amphetamines), which have strong and well-established evidence and are generally considered first choice, and non-stimulants (such as atomoxetine), which are typically used when stimulants are contraindicated, not tolerated, or ineffective.
How many people with ADHD receive medication is an important indicator of care quality and can be tracked at the national level. Untreated ADHD can affect many areas of life, from physical health, to school and work performance, to relationships emotional well-being. ADHD is associated with poorer quality of life, higher risk of accidents, substance use issues, criminal behavior, educational underachievement, and even increased premature mortality. The condition also places a substantial burden on families and caregivers, so understanding treatment rates matters for individuals and society.
Most epidemiological research has measured how common diagnosed ADHD is, but the share of those diagnosed who actually receive medication can vary a lot. That variation reflects differences in how ADHD is diagnosed, how easy it is to get treatment, what clinical guidelines recommend, and cultural attitudes toward using medication.
The Study:
This paper presents the first comprehensive meta-analysis to estimate how common pharmacological treatment is among children, adolescents, and adults with clinically confirmed ADHD. The analysis included only register-based population studies where diagnoses were confirmed by a qualified healthcare professional. Twelve studies meeting these criteria from Europe (the UK, Sweden, Denmark), Asia (Taiwan, South Korea), and North America (Canada, the United States) were used. Notably, these are all high-income areas, and thus unrepresentative of populations in lower-income countries.
The pooled estimate showed that about 73 percent of diagnosed individuals in prosperous parts of the world with well-developed health care systems were receiving medication, but there was very high variation between studies.
The Results:
The authors conclude there is substantial global variation in ADHD medication use. Overall, a relatively high proportion of people diagnosed with ADHD are treated with medication, which may reflect improved recognition and access to care. The large differences between studies probably reflect differing health systems, diagnostic rules, treatment definitions, study populations, and reporting practices, and they underline the need for more standardized definitions and reporting to make comparisons more meaningful.
There is also a need for information from lower-income regions, but that is complicated by an absence of register-based population studies in countries with more limited health care access.
.png)
The Background:
Because impulsivity is a core feature of ADHD, researchers have suggested it may raise the likelihood that someone will use psychoactive substances (including alcohol) and go on to develop a substance use disorder (SUD). When ADHD and SUD occur together in adolescents, treating one disorder alone usually has little or no positive effect on the other; current guidance therefore recommends treating both conditions at the same time using evidence-based approaches for each.
Given how much ADHD can worsen outcomes for people with primary SUDs, it is important to identify ADHD in people who are being treated for substance problems.
The Study:
A recent systematic meta-review found that, by current official criteria, ADHD affects about 7.2% of children and adolescents and about 2.6% of adults (Chaulagain et al., 2023). When adult ADHD is defined without the requirement that symptoms began by age 11, roughly 6.8% of adults meet criteria. A large body of research links ADHD to higher rates of medical problems, poorer quality of life, greater risk of suicide, more accidental injuries, worse educational outcomes, and increased involvement with the criminal justice system.
The present study is the first meta-analysis to estimate how common clinically diagnosed ADHD is among adults (age 18+) who are in treatment for psychoactive substance use disorders, and to provide those estimates by sex and by the specific substance used.
The authors included only studies of adults treated for a SUD (including alcohol). Eighty-four studies met the criteria, representing more than 34,000 people. Across all studies, the pooled prevalence of clinically diagnosed ADHD was 22%.
To put that in context, 22% is about eight times higher than the 2.6% adult prevalence using the stricter official definition, and about three times higher than the 6.8% rate when the childhood-onset requirement is relaxed. By substance, the prevalence was similar for alcohol (24%) and opioids (22%), with no significant difference between males and females. Prevalence among people treated for cocaine use was somewhat lower overall (18%), driven largely by lower rates among women, for whom the rate was no higher than in the general population. Estimates were higher for people using benzodiazepines and cannabis, but those figures are based on a very small number of users (256 and 249 people, respectively) and are therefore less certain.
The Results:
The authors conclude: “These findings underscore the need for early identification and treatment of ADHD as most substance use disorders develop in adolescence and young adulthood. While in treatment for ADHD, appropriate screening and management of substance use is possible.”
The Background:
Stimulant medications (like methylphenidate and amphetamines) and non-stimulants (like atomoxetine and guanfacine) remain the first-line treatments for ADHD, but their long-term use is often constrained by parental concerns, side effects (reduced appetite, sleep disruption, cardiovascular effects), and the fact that roughly 30% of children respond only partially or not at all. These medications tend to help with attention and behavior, but they do less to address emotional regulation or broader physical health, leaving some parents to seek other safe, complementary treatments.
Nutritional approaches, including omega-3 fatty acids, are one such avenue. Oily fish is the natural source, but clinical trials typically rely on supplements instead, since they allow for precise dosing, avoid the heavy-metal exposure that can come with high fish intake, and sidestep the problem of inconsistent dietary habits. Two omega-3s stand out as particularly relevant: DHA, which supports brain structure and cell-to-cell communication, and EPA, which helps reduce brain inflammation and improve blood flow. Both influence the dopamine and serotonin systems implicated in ADHD.
The Study:
Previous meta-analyses have generally found only modest overall benefits with mixed results. This mixed-results pattern may reflect the fact that children who had low omega-3 levels to begin with stand to benefit more than those whose levels are already adequate. This meta-analysis set out to test that idea directly, asking whether a child's baseline omega-3 status predicts how well they respond to supplementation.
To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children diagnosed with ADHD who did not have major coexisting medical conditions. Trials that used broad multinutrient interventions, where the effect of omega-3s specifically couldn't be isolated, were excluded.
The resulting analysis of seven RCTs covering 654 children found small overall improvements in ADHD symptoms with omega-3 supplementation, consistent with earlier meta-analyses. There was little variation across studies, but a clear signal of publication bias, which the authors did not attempt to statistically correct for.
Among four RCTs involving 369 children with low baseline omega-3 levels, supplementation produced a moderate improvement in ADHD symptoms, with consistent results across studies. By contrast, the six RCTs covering 559 children with normal or high baseline omega-3 levels showed no improvement at all, again with consistent results across studies.
The Results:
The authors concluded: this systematic review and meta-analysis offers preliminary evidence that children’s response to long-chain omega-3 supplementation for ADHD may depend on their starting omega-3 nutritional status. Larger effects emerged in the subgroups defined by individual studies as having low baseline levels, while normal, high, or unstratified groups showed little evidence of benefit. In other words, there may be a benefit to children with ADHD taking omega-3 supplements, but only if they are already deficient.
Even still, a sensitivity analysis limited to ADHD symptom-rating scales found only a numerically higher effect in the low-baseline group. This means that these results, though positive, are not considered statistically significant.
The Take-Away:
Given that the evidence rests on just seven trials, that “low baseline” was defined differently across studies (using different biological markers and thresholds), and that several subgroup comparisons were not planned in advance, the authors caution that these findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive.
_logo%201.svg)
