Associations of adverse childhood experiences with blood pressure among early adolescents in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The associations of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) with blood pressure in adulthood are inconclusive. Similarly, the association between ACEs and blood pressure earlier in the life course is understudied. This study aims to assess the associations of ACEs with blood pressure among early adolescents. We utilized data collected at baseline (age: 9–10 years) and Year 2 follow-up from 4077 participants in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. We used adjusted multiple linear regression models to estimate the associations of ACEs (cumulative score and subtypes) at baseline with systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at year 2 of follow-up. Experiencing ≥4 ACEs (compared to 0) was significantly associated with higher SBP ( B = 3.31, 95 % CI 0.03, 6.57, p = 0.048). Of the ACEs subtypes, household substance use ( B = 2.28, 95 % CI 0.28, 4.28, p = 0.028) and divorce or separation ( B = 2.08, 95 % CI 0.01, 4.15, p = 0.048) were both significantly associated with a higher SBP while household mental illness ( B = 2.57, 95 % CI 1.32, 3.81, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with a higher DBP. Our findings suggest that exposure to multiple ACEs is associated with higher blood pressure in adolescence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".