SynthesisClinical epigenetics2026
The impact of adverse childhood experiences on DNA methylation age: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical epigenetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as abuse and neglect, are associated with poor health in adulthood. One proposed biological mechanism linking early adversity to health outcomes is epigenetic age acceleration (EAA), a measure of biological aging derived from DNA methylation. Understanding whether ACEs contribute to EAA might identify pathways linking early life stress to increased risk of morbidity and mortality.This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the relationship between cumulative ACE exposure and EAA in adults across 27 eligible observational studies from 1036 identified by comprehensive screening of the literature. Studies involved more female participants (median 56.6%) and employed a range of epigenetic clocks, most frequently Horvath, GrimAge, and PhenoAge. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool, with most studies rated as having some concerns, primarily due to a lack of adjustment for key covariates. Meta-analyses of 6 studies using cumulative ACE exposure and standardised regression coefficients revealed no significant associations with EAA for first-generation clocks (Horvath: β = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.15 to 0.09; Hannum: β = - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.23) or second-generation clocks (PhenoAge and GrimAge: both β = 0.21, 95% CIs spanning zero). Narrative synthesis of studies, including those that could not be considered in the meta-analyses, highlighted heterogeneous methodologies and mixed findings, particularly for individual ACEs and third generation clocks such as DunedinPACE. These findings suggest that while ACEs may influence biological aging, current evidence does not support a robust or consistent association with EAA. The study identifies the need for more consistent methodologies in future research.
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.