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.
December 8, 2025
The Background:
Myopia is a growing global health concern linked to conditions like macular degeneration, glaucoma, and retinal detachment. Its prevalence has surged in recent decades; by 2050, an estimated 5 billion people will have myopia. The increase is especially marked in Asia – a survey in Taiwan reports that 84% of students aged 15 to 18 are myopic, with 24% severely affected.
Dopamine is an important neurotransmitter in the retina, involved in eye development, visual signaling, and refractive changes. The dopamine hypothesis, suggesting that retinal dopamine release helps prevent myopia, has emerged as a leading theory of myopia control.
Most studies show ADHD is highly heritable, often involving dopamine system genes. ADHD is strongly associated with dopaminergic abnormalities, especially in dopamine transporter function and release dynamics.
Medications for ADHD, like methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, help regulate dopamine to reduce symptoms.
The Study:
Given dopamine’s critical involvement in both ADHD and myopia, a Taiwanese research team hypothesized that medications for ADHD that influence dopaminergic pathways may have a significant effect on myopia risk.
To evaluate this hypothesis, the team conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) program, which covers 99% of the nation’s 23 million residents and provides access to comprehensive eye care and screenings. Taiwan requires visual acuity screenings beginning at age four, with annual examinations for school-aged children to promote the early detection of visual anomalies such as myopia.
Furthermore, ADHD medication and diagnosis are tracked through compulsory diagnostic codes. This permits an accurate assessment of the effects of dopaminergic medications on myopia risk.
Propensity score allocation using a multivariable logistic regression model was applied to reduce bias from confounding influences, pairing cohorts based on similar scores.
The Results:
Comparing 133,945 individuals with ADHD with an equal number without ADHD, untreated ADHD was associated with a 22% greater risk of myopia.
However, after adjusting for covariates (gender, age, insured premium, comorbidities, location, and urbanization level), the ADHD cohort receiving medication treatment showed a 39% decreased risk of myopia relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
Narrowing this further to the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications reduced the risk of myopia by more than half (52%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
Treatment with two dopaminergic medications reduced the risk by well over two-thirds (72%) relative to the untreated ADHD cohort.
There were no significant differences between methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine. Each reduced risk by about 50%.
The team did not directly compare the ADHD cohort receiving dopaminergic medications with the non-ADHD cohort. But if there were 122 cases of myopia in the ADHD cohort for every 100 cases in the non-ADHD cohort, and dopaminergic medications halved the cases in the ADHD cohort to about 60, that would represent a roughly 40% reduction in myopia risk relative to the non-ADHD cohort.
The team concluded, “our research indicates that pharmacologically treated ADHD children have a reduced risk of myopia. Conversely, untreated ADHD children are at a heightened risk relative to those without ADHD. Moreover, the cumulative effects of ADHD medications were found to notably decrease myopia incidence, emphasizing the protective influence of dopaminergic modulation in these interventions.”
The Take-Away:
Children with untreated ADHD are more likely to develop myopia, but those receiving dopaminergic medications had a substantially lower risk. The findings suggest that ADHD medications may help protect against myopia by boosting dopamine signaling. More research is needed before firmly drawing this conclusion, but this research could open the door to new approaches for preventing myopia in at-risk children.
Yu-Te Huang, Jhih-Yi Lu, Peng-Tai Tien, Yih-Dih Cheng, Heng-Jun Lin, Yow-Wen Hsieh, Fuu-Jen Tsai, Lei Wan, and Hui-Ju Lin, “Dopaminergic medications as a preventive for myopia: insights derived from pediatric patients diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” Postgraduate Medical Journal (2025) 101, 1201, 1127–1134, https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgaf051.
The Background:
Down syndrome (DS) is a genetic disorder resulting from an extra copy of chromosome 21. It is associated with intellectual disability.
Three to five thousand children are born with Down syndrome each year. They have higher risks for conditions like hypothyroidism, sleep apnea, epilepsy, sensory issues, infections, and autoimmune diseases. Research on ADHD in patients with Down syndrome has been inconclusive.
The Study:
The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a household survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC.
Due to the low prevalence of Down syndrome, a Chinese research team used NHIS records from 1997 to 2018 to analyze data from 214,300 children aged 3 to 17, to obtain a sufficiently large and nationally representative sample to investigate any potential association with ADHD.
DS and ADHD were identified by asking, “Has a doctor or health professional ever diagnosed your child with Down syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)?”
After adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, plus family highest education level, family income-to-poverty ratio, and geographic region, children and adolescents with Down syndrome had 70% greater odds of also having ADHD than children and adolescents without Down syndrome. There were no significant differences between males and females.
The Take-Away:
The team concluded, “in a nationwide population-based study of U.S. children, we found that a Down syndrome diagnosis was associated with a higher prevalence of ASD and ADHD. Our findings highlight the necessity of conducting early and routine screenings for ASD and ADHD in children with Down syndrome within clinical settings to improve the effectiveness of interventions.”
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.
A landmark nationwide study from South Korea has uncovered a significant link between prenatal exposure to air pollution — specifically nitrogen dioxide (NO2) — and an increased risk of ADHD in children.
While researchers have long suspected that air pollutants interfere with fetal brain development through inflammation and oxidative stress, this study is one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, following nearly 1.5 million births for up to 13 years.
Why South Korea?
South Korea provided a unique countrywide “laboratory” for this research due to two key infrastructure strengths:
Key Findings: The “Smoking Gun” of NO2
While the study looked at several pollutants, nitrogen dioxide — a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion in cars and power plants — emerged as the primary concern.
Pollutant
Association with ADHD Risk
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Strongest Link: Every 1-ppb (part-per-billion) increase in exposure linked to a 22% rise in risk.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Minimal Link: Only a slight 4% increase per ppb.
Ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO), & particulates
No significant association was found.
The scale of the NO2 risk is particularly striking. Over the typical range of exposure levels found in the study (an interquartile range of 13 ppb), the data suggest a threefold increase in ADHD risk for children in the highest-exposure groups compared to the lowest.
Accounting for Other Factors
To ensure the results weren’t skewed by other variables, the researchers controlled for a wide range of confounders including:
The authors emphasized the strong association between maternal nitrogen dioxide exposure and ADHD, while also noting the small but significant association with sulfur dioxide.
The Take-Away: A New Frontier for Public Health
Historically, air quality laws have been designed to protect our lungs and hearts. However, this study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the brain is likewise vulnerable.
In a commentary on the findings, expert George Ayoub argued that “neurodevelopment should be explicitly considered” when governments perform cost-benefit analyses on air quality regulation. My view is a bit different. The association is intriguing but the study does not establish cause and effect. Many statistically significant environmental risk associations for neurodevelopmental disorders have disappeared after controlling for maternal risk for ADHD. I hope this research team will do those analyses if feasible.
Executive functions (EFs) are the cognitive control systems that allow people to pursue goals, make decisions, and adapt to changing circumstances. Researchers generally break them into three overlapping capacities: working memory (holding and manipulating information in mind), inhibitory control (suppressing impulses and filtering out distractions), and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks or mental frameworks). Strong EFs in childhood predict academic achievement, social competence, and long-term mental health; weaknesses in these areas that go unaddressed can persist into adulthood, undermining school performance, career prospects, and well-being.
The Background:
Interest in training these skills has grown rapidly, but most research has been conducted in Western settings. China presents a distinctive context. Collectivist values make group-based programs culturally natural, and parental investment in academic outcomes is high. Both of these factors should, in theory, work in an intervention’s favor. At the same time, tightly scheduled school days (sessions typically capped at 30 minutes or less) constrain what is actually deliverable. A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested EF interventions with Chinese children, but until now, no one has pulled that evidence together systematically.
The Study:
A new network meta-analysis did exactly that. The researchers screened RCTs involving Chinese children aged 3–12, including both typically developing children and those showing subclinical signs of ADHD or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), for instance, siblings of children with an ASD diagnosis. Children who already carried a formal neurodevelopmental diagnosis were excluded. Fifty-two trials covering nearly 3,000 children met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into four categories:
The headline finding is that three of the four intervention types produced statistically significant improvements across all three EF domains. The exception was the hybrid physical-cognitive program, which did not reach significance for inhibitory control. Positive results across the board might sound encouraging until you look at the actual effect sizes.
The Results:
The actual effects were negligible. Every significant result fell well below what methodologists define as a “small” effect (a standardized mean difference, or SMD, of 0.2). The largest effect size in the entire analysis was an SMD of 0.097 (less than half that threshold). The authors summarize the interventions’ effects as “modest,” but that is generous phrasing for numbers that, in practical terms, amount to very little. The analysis also showed signs of publication bias, meaning that studies with null or negative results may not have been published, potentially inflating even these modest figures.
The Take-Away:
It is important to note that these results don’t necessarily mean that this is the last word on EF training. The results apply specifically to Chinese children working within the time constraints of Chinese school schedules, and they exclude children with diagnosed ADHD, a population for whom cognitive interventions sometimes show larger effects. Generalizing beyond those boundaries is unwarranted.
What the findings do suggest is that structured EF programs, as currently implemented in Chinese educational settings, are not delivering meaningful real-world benefits. Statistical significance, it is worth remembering, is not the same as practical significance, and the gap between the two is sharp here.
.png)
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
_logo%201.svg)
