human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: In a prior study [ Festinger , D.S. , Marlowe , D.B. , Croft , J.R. , Dugosh , K.L. , Mastro , N.K. , Lee , P.A. , DeMatteo , D.S. , Patapis , N.S. , 2005 . Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation ? Drug Alcohol Depend . 78 ( 3 ) 275 - 281 ] we found that neither the mode ( cash vs. gift card ) nor magnitude ( $ 10 , $ 40 , or $ 70 ) of research follow-up payments increased rates of new drug use or perceptions of coercion . However , higher payments and payments in cash were associated with better follow-up attendance , reduced tracking efforts , and improved participant satisfaction with the study . The present study extended those findings to higher payment magnitudes . Participants from an urban outpatient substance abuse treatment program were r and omly assigned to receive $ 70 , $ 100 , $ 130 , or $ 160 in either cash or a gift card for completing a follow-up assessment at 6 months post-admission ( n congruent with 50 per cell ) . Apart from the payment incentives , all participants received a st and ardized , minimal platform of follow-up efforts . Findings revealed that neither the magnitude nor mode of payment had a significant effect on new drug use or perceived coercion . Consistent with our previous findings , higher payments and cash payments result ed in significantly higher follow-up rates and fewer tracking calls . In addition participants receiving cash vs. gift cards were more likely to use their payments for essential , non-luxury purchases . Follow-up rates for participants receiving cash payments of $ 100 , $ 130 , and $ 160 approached or exceeded the FDA required minimum of 70 % for studies to be considered in evaluations of new medications . This suggests that the use of higher magnitude payments and cash payments may be effective strategies for obtaining more representative follow-up sample s without increasing new drug use or perceptions of coercion Past studies find that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) creates a higher risk for adverse driving outcomes . This study comprehensively evaluated driving in adults with ADHD by comparing 105 young adults with the disorder ( age 17 - 28 ) to 64 community control ( CC ) adults on five domains of driving ability and a battery of executive function tasks . The ADHD group self-reported significantly more traffic citations , particularly for speeding , vehicular crashes , and license suspensions than the CC group , with most of these differences corroborated in the official DMV records . Cognitively , the ADHD group was less attentive and made more errors during a visual reaction task under rule-reversed conditions than the CC group . The ADHD group also obtained lower sceres on a test of driving rules and decision-making but not on a simple driving simulator . Both self- and other-ratings showed the CC group employed safer routine driving habits than the ADHD group . Relationships between the cognitive and driving measures and the adverse outcomes were limited or absent , calling into question their use in screening ADHD adults for driving risks . Several executive functions also were significantly yet modestly related to accident frequency and total traffic violations after controlling for severity of ADHD . These results are consistent with earlier studies showing significant driving problems are associated with ADHD . This study found that these driving difficulties were not a function of comorbid oppositional defiant disorder , depression , anxiety , or frequency of alcohol or illegal drug use . Findings to date argue for the development of interventions to reduce driving risks among adults with ADHD Driving performance of adult males with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) was compared with matched controls in a double-blind ( Ritalin vs. placebo ) cross-over design , using a high-fidelity driving simulator . Seven ADHD and six non-ADHD drivers ( mean age 22 ) were screened to rule out comorbidity and assess for ADHD , and then admitted to the General Clinical Research Center to control diet and sleep before testing . At 0800 and 1530 , subjects consumed either a placebo or Ritalin pill in a counter-balanced manner , and at 0930 and 1700 , subjects drove the simulator . After both drives , subjects rated their driving performance . Compared with non-ADHD subjects , ADHD subjects had more career driving accidents ( p < .04 ) and motor vehicle violations ( p = .059 ) , drove worse on the simulator under placebo condition ( p < .05 ) , demonstrated significant improvement under the Ritalin condition ( p < .05 ) , rated themselves as driving poorer during the placebo condition ( p = .05 ) , and tended to perceive their driving to be better during the Ritalin condition ( p = .07 ) . This would suggest that individuals with ADHD should have the therapeutic benefit of a stimulant medication when operating a vehicle This study investigated whether ERPs from an inter-modal oddball task could distinguish between adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ( AD/HD ) and controls . Two age-matched groups of young adult males ( 18 AD/HD , 18 controls ) were presented with an inter-modal oddball task in which a counter-phasing checkerboard was the non-target visual stimulus ( r and omly presented on 80 % of trials ) , and a 2000 Hz tone was the auditory target ( 20 % of trials ) . Stimuli were presented at a fixed rate ( stimulus-onset asynchrony 1.03 s ) and participants were required to silently count all targets . The AD/HD group showed globally enhanced P2 and reduced N2 amplitudes to auditory targets , with no differences in target P3 , together with topographic differences in N1 to auditory targets , and P1 , N1 , P2 , N2 and P3 to visual non-targets , compared with controls . These results were interpreted in terms of early sensory-processing impairments in adults with AD/HD , which may be partially overcome through effortful processing , as reflected in the later endogenous ERP components This study examined whether adolescent females with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) are differentially responsive than their male counterparts to extended-release stimulant medications . This investigation may bear special importance for an adolescent ( as opposed to child ) population , because hormonal and metabolism differences between sexes are most likely to emerge at this time . Male ( n = 19 ) and female ( n = 16 ) adolescents , ages 16–19 with ADHD , participated in a r and omized , double-blind crossover study evaluating the effectiveness of osmotic-release methylpheni date , extended release amphetamine salts , placebo , and routine limited medication regimen . Medication efficacy was evaluated using ADHD symptom ratings from adolescent self-report and parent report , along with objective measures of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity during driving performance and neuropsychological tasks . Males and females were largely equivalent in impairment , and medication was similarly effective in reducing symptoms . No interactions were found between sex and medication on any measure of effectiveness or side effects . This finding suggests that the efficacy and tolerability of extended-release stimulant medications is equivalent for male and female adolescents with ADHD BACKGROUND Previous studies have demonstrated the short-term efficacy of pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) , but no longer-term ( i.e. , > 4 months ) investigations have compared these 2 treatments or their combination . METHODS A group of 579 children with ADHD Combined Type , aged 7 to 9.9 years , were assigned to 14 months of medication management ( titration followed by monthly visits ) ; intensive behavioral treatment ( parent , school , and child components , with therapist involvement gradually reduced over time ) ; the two combined ; or st and ard community care ( treatments by community providers ) . Outcomes were assessed in multiple domains before and during treatment and at treatment end point ( with the combined treatment and medication management groups continuing medication at all assessment points ) . Data were analyzed through intent-to-treat r and om-effects regression procedures . RESULTS All 4 groups showed sizable reductions in symptoms over time , with significant differences among them in degrees of change . For most ADHD symptoms , children in the combined treatment and medication management groups showed significantly greater improvement than those given intensive behavioral treatment and community care . Combined and medication management treatments did not differ significantly on any direct comparisons , but in several instances ( oppositional/aggressive symptoms , internalizing symptoms , teacher-rated social skills , parent-child relations , and reading achievement )  combined treatment proved superior to intensive behavioral treatment and /or community care while medication management did not . Study medication strategies were superior to community care treatments , despite the fact that two thirds of community-treated subjects received medication during the study period . CONCLUSIONS For ADHD symptoms , our carefully crafted medication management was superior to behavioral treatment and to routine community care that included medication . Our combined treatment did not yield significantly greater benefits than medication management for core ADHD symptoms , but may have provided modest advantages for non-ADHD symptom and positive functioning outcomes OBJECTIVE Adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) are at high risk for driving accidents . One dose of methylpheni date ( MPH ) improves simulator driving performances of ADHD-diagnosed adolescents at 1.5 hours post-dose . However , little is known about the effects of different MPH delivery profiles on driving performance throughout the day . METHOD This r and omized , crossover , single-blind study compared osmotic , controlled-release oral system ( OROS ) MPH ( Concerta ) given q.d . to immediate-release MPH ( Ritalin ) given in equal doses t.i.d . on driving performance among six male ADHD-diagnosed adolescent drivers aged 16 to 19 years . Under each treatment condition , participants were maintained on their medication dosage for 7 days , then drove a sophisticated driving simulator at 2 p.m. , 5 p.m. , 8 p.m. , and 11 p.m. The primary outcome measure was each participant 's computer-quantified Impaired Driving Score ( IDS ) . RESULTS IDS worsened in the evenings for participants receiving MPH t.i.d . but remained stable when they received once-daily OROS MPH . Participants performed significantly better when receiving OROS MPH q.d . compared with MPH t.i.d . ( F = 9.3 , df = 1 , p = .004 ) . When MPH was given t.i.d . , IDS significantly worsened beginning at 8 p.m. compared to OROS MPH ( p = .01 ) . CONCLUSIONS Participants demonstrated significantly less variability and better driving performance when receiving OROS MPH q.d . compared to MPH t.i.d . , particularly in the evenings Although patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) have reported improved driving performance on methylpheni date , limited evidence exists to support an effect of treatment on driving performance and some regions prohibit driving on methylpheni date . A r and omized , crossover trial examining the effects of methylpheni date versus placebo on highway driving in 18 adults with ADHD was carried out . After three days of no treatment , patients received either their usual methylpheni date dose ( mean : 14.7 mg ; range : 10—30 mg ) or placebo and then the opposite treatment after a six to seven days washout period . Patients performed a 100 km driving test during normal traffic , 1.5 h after treatment administration . St and ard deviation of lateral position ( SDLP ) , the weaving of the car , was the primary outcome measure . Secondary outcome measurements included the st and ard deviation of speed and patient reports of driving performance . Driving performance was significantly better in the methylpheni date than in the placebo condition , as reflected by the SDLP difference ( 2.3 cm , 95 % CI = 0.8—3.8 , P = 0.004 ) . Variation in speed was similar on treatment and on placebo ( -0.05 km/h , 95 % CI = -0.4 to 0.2 , P = 0.70 ) . Among adults with ADHD , with a history of a positive clinical response to methylpheni date , methylpheni date significantly improves driving performance BACKGROUND Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) is associated with a 3- to 4-fold increase in both driving-related accidents and associated injuries .  Methylpheni date ( MPH ) is the most commonly prescribed psychostimulant medication for ADHD . It has been demonstrated to improve performance on a driving simulator . This study investigated whether a once-daily , long-acting , osmotic , controlled-release MPH formulation improves the driving performance of ADHD adolescents while driving their own car on an actual road segment . METHODS Twelve ADHD-diagnosed male adolescent drivers ( mean age , 17.8 years ) prescribed a st  and ard  dose of 1.0 mg/kg ( if they were not already taking methylpheni date ) of controlled-release MPH participated in this repeated- measures crossover study . On 2 separate occasions ( off/on medication r and omized ) , participants drove a st and ard 16-mile road course incorporating rural , highway , and urban streets . A rater , blind to medication conditions , sat in the back seat and rated impulsive ( eg , " cutting off " another driver ) and inattentive ( eg , drove past design ated turn ) driving errors . RESULTS Impulsive driving errors were observed to occur rarely under both medication and no medication conditions . Inattentive driving errors were more common and were significantly reduced while the subject was on medication ( 4.6 versus 7.8 ; P < .01 ) . The improvement in driving performance ( change in number of errors recorded ) from first to second testing was positively correlated with medication dosage ( r = 0.60 ; P < .01 ) . CONCLUSIONS Once- 
    Output:
    
agent
In general , stimulants improved driving performance in ADHD patients ( either in RCTs conducted in simulators and /or cars ) .
MPH-OROS  improved driving performance compared with MAS-XR , placebo , or no-drug conditions .
Although MPH-OROS and MPH-IR produced similar improvements during the day , MPH-IR lost its efficacy in the evening .
MAS-XR also improved driving performance , but worsened driving performance in the evening .
Studies with ATX report conflicting results .
Improvement was more consistent in teenagers and young adults .
In general , treatment with psychostimulants or ATX in therapeutic dosages had no negative impact on driving performance of ADHD patients .
To conclude , treatment with stimulants in therapeutic doses improves driving performance in ADHD patients , especially teenagers and young adults
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: In a prior study [ Festinger , D.S. , Marlowe , D.B. , Croft , J.R. , Dugosh , K.L. , Mastro , N.K. , Lee , P.A. , DeMatteo , D.S. , Patapis , N.S. , 2005 . Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation ? Drug Alcohol Depend . 78 ( 3 ) 275 - 281 ] we found that neither the mode ( cash vs. gift card ) nor magnitude ( $ 10 , $ 40 , or $ 70 ) of research follow-up payments increased rates of new drug use or perceptions of coercion . However , higher payments and payments in cash were associated with better follow-up attendance , reduced tracking efforts , and improved participant satisfaction with the study . The present study extended those findings to higher payment magnitudes . Participants from an urban outpatient substance abuse treatment program were r and omly assigned to receive $ 70 , $ 100 , $ 130 , or $ 160 in either cash or a gift card for completing a follow-up assessment at 6 months post-admission ( n congruent with 50 per cell ) . Apart from the payment incentives , all participants received a st and ardized , minimal platform of follow-up efforts . Findings revealed that neither the magnitude nor mode of payment had a significant effect on new drug use or perceived coercion . Consistent with our previous findings , higher payments and cash payments result ed in significantly higher follow-up rates and fewer tracking calls . In addition participants receiving cash vs. gift cards were more likely to use their payments for essential , non-luxury purchases . Follow-up rates for participants receiving cash payments of $ 100 , $ 130 , and $ 160 approached or exceeded the FDA required minimum of 70 % for studies to be considered in evaluations of new medications . This suggests that the use of higher magnitude payments and cash payments may be effective strategies for obtaining more representative follow-up sample s without increasing new drug use or perceptions of coercion Past studies find that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) creates a higher risk for adverse driving outcomes . This study comprehensively evaluated driving in adults with ADHD by comparing 105 young adults with the disorder ( age 17 - 28 ) to 64 community control ( CC ) adults on five domains of driving ability and a battery of executive function tasks . The ADHD group self-reported significantly more traffic citations , particularly for speeding , vehicular crashes , and license suspensions than the CC group , with most of these differences corroborated in the official DMV records . Cognitively , the ADHD group was less attentive and made more errors during a visual reaction task under rule-reversed conditions than the CC group . The ADHD group also obtained lower sceres on a test of driving rules and decision-making but not on a simple driving simulator . Both self- and other-ratings showed the CC group employed safer routine driving habits than the ADHD group . Relationships between the cognitive and driving measures and the adverse outcomes were limited or absent , calling into question their use in screening ADHD adults for driving risks . Several executive functions also were significantly yet modestly related to accident frequency and total traffic violations after controlling for severity of ADHD . These results are consistent with earlier studies showing significant driving problems are associated with ADHD . This study found that these driving difficulties were not a function of comorbid oppositional defiant disorder , depression , anxiety , or frequency of alcohol or illegal drug use . Findings to date argue for the development of interventions to reduce driving risks among adults with ADHD Driving performance of adult males with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) was compared with matched controls in a double-blind ( Ritalin vs. placebo ) cross-over design , using a high-fidelity driving simulator . Seven ADHD and six non-ADHD drivers ( mean age 22 ) were screened to rule out comorbidity and assess for ADHD , and then admitted to the General Clinical Research Center to control diet and sleep before testing . At 0800 and 1530 , subjects consumed either a placebo or Ritalin pill in a counter-balanced manner , and at 0930 and 1700 , subjects drove the simulator . After both drives , subjects rated their driving performance . Compared with non-ADHD subjects , ADHD subjects had more career driving accidents ( p < .04 ) and motor vehicle violations ( p = .059 ) , drove worse on the simulator under placebo condition ( p < .05 ) , demonstrated significant improvement under the Ritalin condition ( p < .05 ) , rated themselves as driving poorer during the placebo condition ( p = .05 ) , and tended to perceive their driving to be better during the Ritalin condition ( p = .07 ) . This would suggest that individuals with ADHD should have the therapeutic benefit of a stimulant medication when operating a vehicle This study investigated whether ERPs from an inter-modal oddball task could distinguish between adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ( AD/HD ) and controls . Two age-matched groups of young adult males ( 18 AD/HD , 18 controls ) were presented with an inter-modal oddball task in which a counter-phasing checkerboard was the non-target visual stimulus ( r and omly presented on 80 % of trials ) , and a 2000 Hz tone was the auditory target ( 20 % of trials ) . Stimuli were presented at a fixed rate ( stimulus-onset asynchrony 1.03 s ) and participants were required to silently count all targets . The AD/HD group showed globally enhanced P2 and reduced N2 amplitudes to auditory targets , with no differences in target P3 , together with topographic differences in N1 to auditory targets , and P1 , N1 , P2 , N2 and P3 to visual non-targets , compared with controls . These results were interpreted in terms of early sensory-processing impairments in adults with AD/HD , which may be partially overcome through effortful processing , as reflected in the later endogenous ERP components This study examined whether adolescent females with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) are differentially responsive than their male counterparts to extended-release stimulant medications . This investigation may bear special importance for an adolescent ( as opposed to child ) population , because hormonal and metabolism differences between sexes are most likely to emerge at this time . Male ( n = 19 ) and female ( n = 16 ) adolescents , ages 16–19 with ADHD , participated in a r and omized , double-blind crossover study evaluating the effectiveness of osmotic-release methylpheni date , extended release amphetamine salts , placebo , and routine limited medication regimen . Medication efficacy was evaluated using ADHD symptom ratings from adolescent self-report and parent report , along with objective measures of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity during driving performance and neuropsychological tasks . Males and females were largely equivalent in impairment , and medication was similarly effective in reducing symptoms . No interactions were found between sex and medication on any measure of effectiveness or side effects . This finding suggests that the efficacy and tolerability of extended-release stimulant medications is equivalent for male and female adolescents with ADHD BACKGROUND Previous studies have demonstrated the short-term efficacy of pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) , but no longer-term ( i.e. , > 4 months ) investigations have compared these 2 treatments or their combination . METHODS A group of 579 children with ADHD Combined Type , aged 7 to 9.9 years , were assigned to 14 months of medication management ( titration followed by monthly visits ) ; intensive behavioral treatment ( parent , school , and child components , with therapist involvement gradually reduced over time ) ; the two combined ; or st and ard community care ( treatments by community providers ) . Outcomes were assessed in multiple domains before and during treatment and at treatment end point ( with the combined treatment and medication management groups continuing medication at all assessment points ) . Data were analyzed through intent-to-treat r and om-effects regression procedures . RESULTS All 4 groups showed sizable reductions in symptoms over time , with significant differences among them in degrees of change . For most ADHD symptoms , children in the combined treatment and medication management groups showed significantly greater improvement than those given intensive behavioral treatment and community care . Combined and medication management treatments did not differ significantly on any direct comparisons , but in several instances ( oppositional/aggressive symptoms , internalizing symptoms , teacher-rated social skills , parent-child relations , and reading achievement )  combined treatment proved superior to intensive behavioral treatment and /or community care while medication management did not . Study medication strategies were superior to community care treatments , despite the fact that two thirds of community-treated subjects received medication during the study period . CONCLUSIONS For ADHD symptoms , our carefully crafted medication management was superior to behavioral treatment and to routine community care that included medication . Our combined treatment did not yield significantly greater benefits than medication management for core ADHD symptoms , but may have provided modest advantages for non-ADHD symptom and positive functioning outcomes OBJECTIVE Adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) are at high risk for driving accidents . One dose of methylpheni date ( MPH ) improves simulator driving performances of ADHD-diagnosed adolescents at 1.5 hours post-dose . However , little is known about the effects of different MPH delivery profiles on driving performance throughout the day . METHOD This r and omized , crossover , single-blind study compared osmotic , controlled-release oral system ( OROS ) MPH ( Concerta ) given q.d . to immediate-release MPH ( Ritalin ) given in equal doses t.i.d . on driving performance among six male ADHD-diagnosed adolescent drivers aged 16 to 19 years . Under each treatment condition , participants were maintained on their medication dosage for 7 days , then drove a sophisticated driving simulator at 2 p.m. , 5 p.m. , 8 p.m. , and 11 p.m. The primary outcome measure was each participant 's computer-quantified Impaired Driving Score ( IDS ) . RESULTS IDS worsened in the evenings for participants receiving MPH t.i.d . but remained stable when they received once-daily OROS MPH . Participants performed significantly better when receiving OROS MPH q.d . compared with MPH t.i.d . ( F = 9.3 , df = 1 , p = .004 ) . When MPH was given t.i.d . , IDS significantly worsened beginning at 8 p.m. compared to OROS MPH ( p = .01 ) . CONCLUSIONS Participants demonstrated significantly less variability and better driving performance when receiving OROS MPH q.d . compared to MPH t.i.d . , particularly in the evenings Although patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) have reported improved driving performance on methylpheni date , limited evidence exists to support an effect of treatment on driving performance and some regions prohibit driving on methylpheni date . A r and omized , crossover trial examining the effects of methylpheni date versus placebo on highway driving in 18 adults with ADHD was carried out . After three days of no treatment , patients received either their usual methylpheni date dose ( mean : 14.7 mg ; range : 10—30 mg ) or placebo and then the opposite treatment after a six to seven days washout period . Patients performed a 100 km driving test during normal traffic , 1.5 h after treatment administration . St and ard deviation of lateral position ( SDLP ) , the weaving of the car , was the primary outcome measure . Secondary outcome measurements included the st and ard deviation of speed and patient reports of driving performance . Driving performance was significantly better in the methylpheni date than in the placebo condition , as reflected by the SDLP difference ( 2.3 cm , 95 % CI = 0.8—3.8 , P = 0.004 ) . Variation in speed was similar on treatment and on placebo ( -0.05 km/h , 95 % CI = -0.4 to 0.2 , P = 0.70 ) . Among adults with ADHD , with a history of a positive clinical response to methylpheni date , methylpheni date significantly improves driving performance BACKGROUND Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) is associated with a 3- to 4-fold increase in both driving-related accidents and associated injuries .  Methylpheni date ( MPH ) is the most commonly prescribed psychostimulant medication for ADHD . It has been demonstrated to improve performance on a driving simulator . This study investigated whether a once-daily , long-acting , osmotic , controlled-release MPH formulation improves the driving performance of ADHD adolescents while driving their own car on an actual road segment . METHODS Twelve ADHD-diagnosed male adolescent drivers ( mean age , 17.8 years ) prescribed a st  and ard  dose of 1.0 mg/kg ( if they were not already taking methylpheni date ) of controlled-release MPH participated in this repeated- measures crossover study . On 2 separate occasions ( off/on medication r and omized ) , participants drove a st and ard 16-mile road course incorporating rural , highway , and urban streets . A rater , blind to medication conditions , sat in the back seat and rated impulsive ( eg , " cutting off " another driver ) and inattentive ( eg , drove past design ated turn ) driving errors . RESULTS Impulsive driving errors were observed to occur rarely under both medication and no medication conditions . Inattentive driving errors were more common and were significantly reduced while the subject was on medication ( 4.6 versus 7.8 ; P < .01 ) . The improvement in driving performance ( change in number of errors recorded ) from first to second testing was positively correlated with medication dosage ( r = 0.60 ; P < .01 ) . CONCLUSIONS Once- 
    Output:
    