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.
A recent Wall Street Journal article raised alarms by concluding that many children who start medication for ADHD will later end up on several psychiatric drugs. It’s an emotional topic that will make many parents, teachers, and even doctors worry: “Are we putting kids on a conveyor belt of medications?”
The article seeks to shine a light on the use of more than one psychiatric medication for children with ADHD. My biggest worry about the article is that it presents itself as a scientific study because they analyzed a database. It is not a scientific study. It is a journalistic investigation that does not meet the standards of a scientific report..
The WJS brings attention to several issues that parents and prescribers should think about. It documents that some kids with ADHD are on more than one psychiatric medication, and some are receiving drugs like antipsychotics, which have serious side effects. Is that appropriate? Access to good therapy, careful evaluation, and follow-up care can be lacking, especially for low-income families. Can that be improved? On that level, the article is doing something valuable: it’s shining a spotlight on potential problems.
It is, of course, fine for a journalist to raise questions, but it is not OK for them to pretend that they’ve done a scientific investigation that proves anything. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
Journalism vs. Science: Why Peer Review Matters
Journalists can get big datasets, hire data journalists, and present numbers that look scientific. But consider the differences between Journalism and Science. These types of articles are usually checked by editors and fact-checkers. Their main goals are:
Is this fact basically correct?
Are we being fair?
Are we avoiding legal problems?
But editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific data analysis methods. Scientific reports are evaluated by experts who are not part of the project. They ask tough questions like:
Exactly how did you define ADHD?
How did you handle missing data?
Did you address confounding?
Did you confuse correlation with causation?
If the authors of the study cannot address these and other technical issues, the paper is rejected.
The WSJ article has the veneer of science but lacks its methodology.
Correlation vs. Causation: A Classic Trap
The article’s storyline goes something like this: A kid starts ADHD medication. She has additional problems or side effects caused by the ADHD medications. Because of that, the prescriber adds more drugs. That leads to the patient being put on several drugs. Although it is true that some ADHD youth are on multiple drugs, the WSJ is wrong to conclude that the medications for ADHD cause this to occur. That simply confuses correlation with causation, which only the most naïve scientist would do.
In science, this problem is called confounding. It means other factors (like how severe or complex a child’s condition is) explain the results, not just the thing we’re focused on (medication for ADHD).
The WSJ analyzed a database of prescriptions. They did not survey the prescribers who made the prescriptions of the patients who received them. So they cannot conclude that ADHD medication caused the later prescriptions, or that the later medications were unnecessary or inappropriate.
Other explanations are very likely. It has been well documented that youth with ADHD are at high risk for developing other disorders such as anxiety, depression, and substance use. The kids in the WSJ database might have developed these disorders and needed several medications. A peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal would be expected to adjust for other diagnoses. If that is not possible, as it is in the case of the WSJ’s database, a journal would not allow the author to make strong conclusions about cause-and-effect.
Powerful Stories Don’t Always Mean Typical Stories
The article includes emotional accounts of children who seemed harmed by being put on multiple psychiatric drugs. Strong, emotional stories can make rare events feel common. They also frighten parents and patients, which might lead some to decline appropriate care.
These stories matter. They remind us that each data point is a real person. But these stories are the weakest form of data. They can raise important questions and lead scientists to design definitive studies, but we cannot use them to draw conclusions about the experiences of other patients. These stories serve as a warning about the importance of finding a qualified provider, not as against the use of multiple medications. That decision should be made by the parent or adult patient based on an informed discussion with the prescriber.
Many children and adults with ADHD benefit from multiple medications. The WSJ does not tell those stories, which creates an unbalanced and misleading presentation.
Newspapers frequently publish stories that send the message: “Beware! Doctors are practicing medicine in a way that will harm you and your family.” They then use case studies to prove their point. The title of the article is, itself, emotional clickbait designed to get more readers and advertising revenue. Don’t be confused by such journalistic trickery.
What Should We Conclude?
Here’s a balanced way to read the article. It is true that some patients are prescribed more than one medication for mental health problems. But the article does not tell us whether this prescribing practice is or is not warranted for most patients. I agree that the use of antipsychotic medications needs careful justification and close monitoring. I also agree that patients on multiple medications should be monitored closely to see if some of the medications can be eliminated. Many prescribers do exactly that, but the WSJ did not tell their stories.
It is not appropriate to conclude that ADHD medications typically cause combined pharmacotherapy or to suggest that combined pharmacotherapy is usually bad. The data presented by the WSJ does not adequately address these concerns. It does not prove that medications for ADHD cause dangerous medication cascades.
We have to remember that even when a journalist analyzes data, that is not the same as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
.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.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
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.
For centuries, we’ve called the eyes the "windows to the soul," but for modern neurologists, they are quite literally a window into the brain. The retina and the central nervous system share the same embryonic origins, developing from the same neural tissue in the womb. Because of this deep biological connection, the back of your eye acts as a non-invasive map of your brain's health, displaying a complex web of nerves and blood vessels that can (theoretically!) mirror certain neurodevelopmental conditions.
Recently, a buzz rippled through the mental health community when a study published in partnership with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital claimed a massive breakthrough. Researchers developed an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model that could screen children for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) using nothing more than a simple retinal photograph. The study, which prospectively recruited children from Severance Hospital and Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, produced results that were staggering: the AI reportedly achieved an accuracy rate of 96.9%!
In the world of medical testing, scientists use a metric called AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic) to measure how well a test works.
An AUROC of 96.9% is a near-perfect score, suggesting a tool is ready for immediate, real-world deployment. While headlines promised a revolution in mental health screening, a deeper look into this research and the study’s design has exposed that this 96.9% AUROC was more likely evidence of a flawed methodology rather than a biological reality.
To build their screening tool, researchers analyzed over 1,100 retinal images using a digital pipeline called AutoMorph and a machine-learning model known as XGBoost. The AI was trained to hunt for physical signals of the "Dopamine Connection." Dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter involved in ADHD, but it is also essential to the eye. It regulates synaptic formation, retinal blood flow, and vascular endothelial regulation. Because dopamine dysregulation influences how blood vessels grow and remodel, the study hypothesized that an ADHD brain would leave a unique "fingerprint" on the retinal vasculature, resulting in denser, thicker vessel structures.
On paper, the logic was sound: use AI to spot the subtle vascular remodeling caused by dopaminergic shifts. But a closer look at the investigation revealed that the AI wasn't just spotting ADHD; it was over-indexing on technical noise.
The most significant "smoking gun" flagged by critics is a massive temporal mismatch. In other words, there was a severe disparity in the timeframes and conditions under which the retinal images for the two comparison groups were collected. For an AI to learn a biological condition, it must compare groups under identical technical conditions. Instead, this study created a time-traveling dataset:
A scientific study is only as reliable as its control group. The control in any experiment acts as a baseline against which the study group is compared. In this case, the control group should be composed of children without any neurodevelopmental disorders, or of “typically developing” children.
In this study, the control group wasn't composed of healthy children from the community. Instead, they were patients visiting a tertiary ophthalmology clinic. Children visiting a specialist eye hospital are rarely "typical." They are there because they have symptomatic eye issues. This introduced a massive selection bias involving three major confounders:
When training AI, you must never allow the "test questions" to leak into the "study material." The researchers, however, committed a fundamental violation of machine learning hygiene known as Eye-to-Eye Data Leakage. The study split the data by the eye rather than by the participant.
Human eyes are highly correlated; the left eye is a near-mirror of the right. If a child's left eye was used for training and their right eye was used for testing, the AI was effectively "cheating." Instead of learning the general traits of ADHD, the model was potentially memorizing individuals. This error artificially balloons accuracy metrics.
The true test of medical AI is diagnostic specificity, or differential diagnosis. This refers to the ability to tell one condition apart from another. While the model claimed 96.9% accuracy against a flawed control group, its performance collapsed when faced with real-world complexity.
When the researchers asked the AI to differentiate between ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), the accuracy plummeted to a poor 63% AUROC. In real-world clinical settings, an accuracy of 63% is dangerously close to a 50% coin flip. Since ADHD frequently co-occurs with ASD, anxiety, or intellectual disabilities, an AI that cannot handle these "clinical differentials" is functionally useless in a doctor's office. The failure at this stage proves the model was likely detecting technical quirks of the dataset rather than a unique biological marker for ADHD.
To move from the lab to the clinic, we must establish a foundation built on rigor rather than high-speed data scraping. Moving forward, we must demand these 3 Pillars of Trusted Medical AI :
The dream of a quick eye scan to diagnose ADHD is not dead, but it must be rescued from "fast science" shortcuts and buzzy headlines.
Background:
One of the more persistent concerns among parents of children with ADHD is whether stimulant medications will stunt their child's growth. A large Israeli cohort study now offers some of the most rigorous reassurance to date, and its methodology sets it apart from earlier research.
The question has long been complicated by a more fundamental uncertainty: do growth differences in children with ADHD stem from the condition itself, from stimulant treatment, or from factors present before any medication is ever prescribed? Without a clear answer, clinicians and families have faced a genuine dilemma when weighing the benefits of stimulant therapy against potential long-term physical costs.
Most previous studies compounded this difficulty by comparing group-average heights, which ignores the crucial variable of genetic potential. A child who is short relative to the general population may simply have short parents. Failing to account for this introduces systematic bias and can make medications appear more harmful than they are.
The Study:
The Israeli research team addressed this directly. Using health records from a nationwide provider, they assembled a retrospective cohort of children born between 1995 and 2003, following them through 2023. This amount of time was long enough for all participants to have reached adult stature (defined as 17 or older for females, 19 or older for males). Their sample included 5,671 children with untreated ADHD, 11,846 who received stimulant treatment, and 47,258 non-ADHD controls. Children who took stimulants for only one to two months, or who had chronic medical conditions requiring long-term medication, were excluded to avoid confounding the results.
Crucially, adult height was evaluated not against population norms but against each individual's expected height, calculated from parental heights using the Tanner-Goldstein-Whitehouse method, a standard approach for estimating genetic height potential via mid-parental height.
When the researchers compared adult heights across the three groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA), they did find statistically significant differences. But statistical significance, particularly in studies with tens of thousands of participants, does not automatically translate into clinical significance. The effect sizes were consistently very small, and the absolute differences were under one centimeter, which is a margin considered clinically negligible.
Their conclusion is measured but clear: after accounting for genetic growth potential, neither an ADHD diagnosis nor stimulant treatment was associated with meaningful reductions in adult height. The findings, they argue, support prioritizing behavioral and functional outcomes when making treatment decisions, since the risk of clinically significant height loss appears to be minimal.
The Take-Away:
For families navigating ADHD treatment, the practical implication is significant: concerns about permanent growth suppression, while understandable, should not be the primary driver of whether or how long a child receives stimulant therapy.
A recent meta-analysis examined how well cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) improves not just symptoms, but everyday functioning and quality of life in adults with ADHD.
The Background:
ADHD in adults affects far more than attention or impulsivity. It often disrupts key areas of life:
These broad impacts highlight a key issue: reducing symptoms does not automatically translate into better day-to-day functioning.
CBT is a structured, skills-based therapy that helps people:
While both medication (especially stimulants) and CBT improve core ADHD symptoms, CBT is particularly aimed at improving real-world functioning.
The Study:
The researchers analyzed studies involving adults diagnosed with ADHD (or showing clinically significant symptoms). They included:
They focused specifically on outcomes beyond symptoms:
The Results:
1. Strongest Effects: Occupational functioning
CBT showed consistently strong improvements in work-related functioning compared to control groups, both immediately after treatment and at follow-up. This was the most robust finding across domains.
2. Moderate Improvement: Global Functional Impairment
CBT led to moderate improvements in overall daily functioning, with some evidence that gains persist over time. In studies tracking individuals over time, improvements were even stronger at follow-up.
3. Modest Gains: Social Relationships
CBT produced small to moderate improvements in social functioning. Benefits were present both after treatment and at follow-up, but were less pronounced than in work-related outcomes.
4. Limited Effects: Academic Functioning
There were moderate short-term gains when CBT was compared to control groups, but these did not persist at follow-up. Within-subject studies showed only small improvements overall.
5. Modest and Inconsistent Effects: Quality of Life
Improvements in quality of life were small when compared to control groups and often did not last. However, studies tracking individuals over time showed moderate improvements, suggesting some benefit that may not always show up clearly in between-group comparisons.
Overall, the findings suggest:
One notable nuance: CBT did not always outperform other active treatments (like medication or other therapies). This suggests that while CBT is effective, its benefits may partly overlap with broader therapeutic or support effects rather than relying on a single, unique mechanism.
The Take-Away:
CBT is a valuable, evidence-based treatment for adults with ADHD, especially for improving work functioning and overall daily life management. However, its impact on relationships, academic outcomes, and quality of life is more limited and less consistent, pointing to the need for more targeted or combined approaches in those areas.
_logo%201.svg)
