Socioenvironmental Adversity and Adolescent Psychotic Experiences: Exploring Potential Mechanisms in a UK Longitudinal Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Children exposed to socioenvironmental adversities (eg, urbanicity, pollution, neighborhood deprivation, crime, and family disadvantage) are more likely to subsequently develop subclinical psychotic experiences during adolescence (eg, hearing voices, paranoia). However, the pathways through which this occurs have not been previously investigated. We hypothesized that cognitive ability and inflammation would partly explain this association. STUDY DESIGN: Data were utilized from the Environmental-Risk Longitudinal Twin Study, a cohort of 2232 children born in 1994-1995 in England and Wales and followed to age 18. Socioenvironmental adversities were measured from birth to age 10 and classified into physical risk (defined by high urbanicity and air pollution) and socioeconomic risk (defined by high neighborhood deprivation, neighborhood disorder, and family disadvantage). Cognitive abilities (overall, crystallized, fluid, and working memory) were assessed at age 12; and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor) were measured at age 18 from blood samples. Participants were interviewed at age 18 regarding psychotic experiences. STUDY RESULTS: Higher physical risk and socioeconomic risk were associated with increased odds of psychotic experiences in adolescence. The largest mediation pathways were from socioeconomic risk via overall cognitive ability and crystallized ability, which accounted for ~11% and ~19% of the association with psychotic experiences, respectively. No statistically significant pathways were found via inflammatory markers in exploratory (partially cross-sectional) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive ability, especially crystallized ability, may partly explain the association between childhood socioenvironmental adversity and adolescent psychotic experiences. Interventions to support cognitive development among children living in disadvantaged settings could buffer them against developing subclinical psychotic phenomena.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".