Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Altered Autonomic Functioning in Youths With Emotional Dysregulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically investigate if there is a significant association between markers of autonomic functioning and emotional dysregulation (ED) in children and adolescents. METHOD: Based on a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42021239635), PubMed, Web of Knowledge/Science, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycInfo databases were searched until April 21, 2021, to identify empirical studies reporting indices of autonomic nervous system (ANS) functioning in youths meeting DSM (version III, IV, IV-TR, 5 or 5-TR) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (version 9 or 10) criteria for any psychopathological/neurodevelopmental condition and assessed for ED with a validated scale. Eligible outcomes included correlation coefficients between ED and ANS measures or differences in ANS measures between youths with and without ED. Study quality was assessed with the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis. RESULTS: There were 12 studies (1,016 participants) included in the descriptive review and 9 studies (567 participants) included in the meta-analyses. No evidence of a significant association between ED and altered cardiac or electrodermal functioning was found. However, exploratory meta-regressions suggested a possible association between reduced resting-state cardiac vagal control and increased ED. CONCLUSION: This study did not find evidence of an association between ED and autonomic dysfunction. However, preliminary evidence that reduced vagal control at rest might be a transdiagnostic marker of ED in young people was found. Additional studies comparing autonomic measures in youths with and without ED are needed and should also assess the effects of interventions for ED on ANS functioning. STUDY PREREGISTRATION INFORMATION: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Is Autonomic Nervous System Functioning Atypical in Children and Adolescents With Emotional Dysregulation? https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; CRD42021239635.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".