ArticleBrain and behavior2025
Leisure Screen Time and the Risk of Six Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leisure Screen Time and the Risk of Six Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)-including autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intellectual disability, learning disability, speech disorder, and Tourette disorder-impact brain development and impair social, learning, and occupational functioning. We performed a Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using summary data from global genome-wide association studies to investigate the potential causal relationship between leisure screen time (LST) and NDDs risk.
methodsOur dataset comprised 703,901 participants of European ancestry from 51 studies, with 256,725 individuals in the LST-valid sample. We investigated causal associations with six types of NDDs using five MR methods: inverse-variance weighted (IVW), MR Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode. IVW was the primary method due to its efficiency and precision. Heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy were assessed using IVW and MR Egger, while the other methods served as sensitivity analyses to confirm robustness.
resultsThe IVW method revealed that each standard deviation increase in LST was associated with a reduced risk of ADHD (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52-0.89) and an elevated risk of intellectual disability (OR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.26-2.18). These associations were consistent with the weighted median analysis (ADHD: OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.47-0.98; intellectual disability: OR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.06-2.14).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that genetic predisposition to increased LST is causally associated with a lower risk of ADHD but a higher risk of intellectual disability, with no evidence for a causal relatawdionship with the other four NDDs. Larger or longitudinal studies are needed for further validation.
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.