ReviewPharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior2021
Multiomic biological approaches to the study of child abuse and neglect.
Review in Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early life adversity and risk for non-communicable health outcomes: challenges and opportunities for a maturing field.BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of life adversity and gene expression on psychiatric symptoms in children and adolescents: findings from the Brazilian high risk cohort study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Altered Brain Functional Connectivity and Peripheral Transcriptomic Profiles in Major Depressive Disorder With Childhood Maltreatment.Depression and anxiety · 2025Article
- Mediating effect of suicidal ideation in the association between child abuse and premenstrual syndrome among female adults.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Investigating the effects of maltreatment and acute stress on the concordance of blood and DNA methylation methods of estimating immune cell proportions.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Childhood maltreatment, occurring in up to 20-30% of the population, remains far too common, and incorporates a range of active and passive factors, from abuse, to neglect, to the impacts of broader structural and systemic adversity. Despite the effects of childhood maltreatment and adversity on a wide range of adult physical and psychological negative outcomes, not all individuals respond similarly. Understanding the differential biological mechanisms contributing to risk vs. resilience in the face of developmental adversity is critical to improving preventions, treatments, and policy recommendations. This review begins by providing an overview of childhood abuse, neglect, maltreatment, threat, and toxic stress, and the effects of these forms of adversity on the developing body, brain, and behavior. It then examines examples from the current literature of genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic discoveries and biomarkers that may help to understand risk and resilience in the aftermath of trauma, predictors of traumatic exposure risk, and potential targets for intervention and prevention. While the majority of genetic, epigenetic, and gene expression analyses to date have focused on targeted genes and hypotheses, large-scale consortia are now well-positioned to better understand interactions of environment and biology with much more statistical power. Ongoing and future work aimed at understanding the biology of childhood adversity and its effects will help to provide targets for intervention and prevention, as well as identify paths for how science, health care, and policy can combine efforts to protect and promote the psychological and physiological wellbeing of future generations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.