CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Pemoline

chemical compound

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 20, 2026
Entity authorityQ419008
Source-derived summary

Pemoline, formerly sold under the brand name Cylert among others, is a stimulant medication which was used in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy. It has since been discontinued in most countries due to rare but serious liver toxicity. The medication was taken by mouth.

Common side effects include insomnia, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, irritability, and headaches, while rare cases of serious liver damage requiring liver transplantation or causing death have been reported. As a stimulant, pemoline acts as a selective dopamine reuptake inhibitor and releasing agent via indirect agonism of dopamine receptors. In addition, it shows little activity with respect to norepinephrine, thus minimal to no cardiovascular or sympathomimetic effects in comparison to many other stimulants.

Pemoline was first synthesized in 1913, but its stimulant activity was not discovered until the 1930s, nor used for ADHD until 1975. Between 1997 and 2005, many countries, including the United States, withdrew the drug due to liver toxicity. However, it remains available in Japan for the treatment of narcolepsy at lower doses than those used for ADHD. Pemoline is a schedule IV controlled substance in the United States due to structural and functional similarity to other stimulants, and potential for misuse. However, it is noted to have less misuse potential than other stimulant drugs.

Editorial summary

“Pemoline” enters the record as chemical compound. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Pemoline, chemical and compound can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1913, 1975, 1997, 2005—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Pemoline, chemical and compound.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Pemoline” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Pemoline, chemical and compound provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 20, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q419008. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1913, 1975, 1997 and 2005.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Pemoline”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Pemoline primary sources, Pemoline archive and Pemoline research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pemoline”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Pemoline” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.