MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381681117 · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16111-x

Associations between adverse childhood experiences and early adolescent problematic screen use in the United States

2023· article· en· W4381681117 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDoris Duke Charitable Foundation
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsAdverse Childhood ExperiencesPublic healthEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthAdverse effectYoung adultPediatricsPsychiatryFamily medicineGerontologyMental healthNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Problematic screen use, defined as an inability to control use despite private, social, and professional life consequences, is increasingly common among adolescents and can have significant mental and physical health consequences. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are important risk factors in the development of addictive behaviors and may play an important role in the development of problematic screen use. METHODS: Prospective data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (Baseline and Year 2; 2018-2020; N = 9,673, participants who did not use screens were excluded) were analyzed in 2023. Generalized logistic mixed effects models were used to determine associations with ACEs and the presence of problematic use among adolescents who used screens based on cutoff scores. Secondary analyses used generalized linear mixed effects models to determine associations between ACEs and adolescent-reported problematic use scores of video games (Video Game Addiction Questionnaire), social media (Social Media Addiction Questionnaire), and mobile phones (Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire). Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders including age, sex, race/ethnicity, highest parent education, household income, adolescent anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit symptoms, study site, and participants who were twins. RESULTS: The 9,673 screen-using adolescents ages 11-12 years old (mean age 12.0) were racially and ethnically diverse (52.9% White, 17.4% Latino/Hispanic, 19.4% Black, 5.8% Asian, 3.7% Native American, 0.9% Other). Problematic screen use rates among adolescents were identified to be 7.0% (video game), 3.5% (social media), and 21.8% (mobile phone). ACEs were associated with higher problematic video game and mobile phone use in both unadjusted and adjusted models, though problematic social media use was associated with mobile screen use in the unadjusted model only. Adolescents exposed to 4 or more ACEs experienced 3.1 times higher odds of reported problematic video game use and 1.6 times higher odds of problematic mobile phone use compared to peers with no ACEs. CONCLUSIONS: Given the significant associations between adolescent ACE exposure and rates of problematic video and mobile phone screen use among adolescents who use screens, public health programming for trauma-exposed youth should explore video game, social media, and mobile phone use among this population and implement interventions focused on supporting healthy digital habits.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it