Mental health in children conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs): Insights from a longitudinal study of Australian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mental health of children conceived using Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) such as In-Vitro-Fertilization (IVF) is a subject of significant controversy. Existing studies suggest children conceived through ART meet physical and cognitive developmental milestones at similar rates to their spontaneously conceived peers, however, a significant number of studies have connected ART conception with mental health conditions, particularly depression and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescence. This study, therefore, aimed to determine whether maternal use of ARTs to achieve pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of mental disorders in these children, and whether these effects are sex-dependent or confounded by known covariates in the ART population. METHODS: Secondary data analysis was performed using Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) data; a nationally representative population-based cross-sequential cohort study. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the impact of ART (including IVF and other fertility drugs, from LSAC wave-1 and wave-2 conducted in 2004 and 2006, respectively) on mental health outcomes (i.e., autism, ADHD, anxiety and/or depression, from LSAC waves 8 conducted in 2018) in Australian adolescents aged 18-19 years in 2018 (n = 1735). Known sociological and obstetric covariates including maternal age, birth weight, smoking and drinking alcohol during pregnancy, maternal gestational diabetes, postnatal depression, hypertension, and socioeconomic status were considered to generate an adjusted logistic model. Variables with a p-value of <0.05 in the regression models were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 1735 mother-child dyads analysed, the maternal mean age was 35.6 years (Standard deviation = ±4.75), approximately 5% of mothers (n = 89) used ART to become pregnant, and 22% of adolescents (n = 384) had a mental disorder. Longitudinal analysis revealed no relationship between ART and children developing a mental disorder in the LSAC population. CONCLUSION: These results should reassure parents considering ART that there is no increased risk of psychological or neurodevelopmental problems in their ART conceived offspring.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".