Infancy predictors of functional somatic symptoms in pre- and late adolescence: a longitudinal cohort study 2024 Münker, Rosmalen et al

Andy

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
Abstract

Physiological regulatory problems in infancy (i.e., problems with sleeping, feeding, and tactile reactivity) have been associated with impairing functional somatic symptoms (FSS) at ages 5–7. We aimed to extend this finding by examining not only the association of physiological regulatory problems but also other infancy factors (i.e., emotion dysregulation and contact problems) with FSS in pre- and late adolescence.

Standardized behavioral assessments and self-report questionnaire data from assessment waves at 0–1, 11–12, and 16–17 years of the population-based Copenhagen Child Cohort (CCC2000) were linked with Danish register data on maternal postpartum psychiatric illness and family adversity as covariates. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to examine the association between infancy factors and FSS in pre- and late adolescence. Only infancy physiological regulatory problems significantly predicted preadolescent FSS (b = 0.38, 95% CI [0.14, 0.62]), also when accounting for maternal postpartum psychiatric illness and family adversity. The association was attenuated for late adolescent FSS.

Conclusion: Infancy physiological regulatory problems may represent early signs of a dysregulated stress system and were found to significantly predict FSS in pre- but not late adolescence. Implications for early FSS prevention could include testing interventions promoting infants’ regulation of sleep, feeding, and tactile reactivity.

What is Known:

• Functional somatic symptoms (FSS) are common in adolescence.

• Explanatory models of FSS emphasize a multifactorial etiology involving interactions between early child-related vulnerabilities and contextual factors.

• Infancy physiological regulatory problems (i.e., problems in the area of sleeping, feeding, and tactile reactivity) might represent early signs of a dysregulated stress system, and have been shown to predict impairing FSS in preschool childhood.

What is New:

• This study investigated the association between infancy factors, namely physiological regulatory problems with feeding, sleeping, and/or tactile reactivity, emotion dysregulation, and contact problems, and FSS in pre- and late adolescence.

• Only a combination of infancy physiological regulatory problems significantly predicted preadolescent FSS, with the association attenuating for FSS in late adolescence.

• Implications for early FSS prevention could include parent-mediated interventions aiming to promote infants’ physiological regulatory skills.

Open access, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-024-05850-7
 
They can't see that this makes no sense? They simply decide to arbitrarily label this as "dysregulated stress system", whatever that means, so it's literally their own labeling of physical symptoms that they then use as evidence for literally no reason other than this is their belief system and that no one objects to nonsense here because clearly no one cares.

Decades of the same circular speculative nonsense, using circular questionnaires that ask symptoms and attribute them to some imagined distress:
Emerging evidence suggests that other psychosocial factors, such as relationship difficulties, neurotic personality tendencies, perceived academic stress, and illness-related worries, may become increasingly salient for the development and manifestation of FSS during late adolescence
Click to expand...
Literally the same speculation going back from the early days of this ideology. They never change anything, keep writing the same opinion over and over again.
Functional Somatic Symptoms, i.e., somatic symptoms that commonly cannot be attributed to a well-defined physical disease, are complex phenomena involving both bodily and brain processes
Click to expand...
Even the circular reasoning and evidence are themselves looping on themselves. This is the roof holding the whole structure, acting as load-bearing.

But, hey, easy PhDs and easy papers to publish. They can pretty much just copy-paste prior work and no one would even notice it.
 
Arnie Pye said:
Labelling infants with something that reduces or eliminates medical care in future in so many people, for something the infants have no control over is appalling and cruel.
Click to expand...
I remember watching Gattica years ago and this and few other recent similar attempts in this direction remind me of that but in a reverse way where there’s actually no genetics at all or even evidence. It’s just labelling someone subjectively based on a situation they are in without it sounds any investigations,

and in fact from what I’ve heard about diagnoses for other things being made later sbd later past this age for various reasons it sickeningly sounds like getting in there first before such things finally do have to be considered (such as autism, abdominal issues and other illnesses )

people are born with psychosomaticisn practically now are they?

Or is It’s also a bit ‘Freud and skipping the oral stage’ etc ?

Is it ‘you cried too much as a baby so now you’ve been opted out of the human right to medical care fir the rest of your life and risk what being assumed mentally unsound if you do try to access it fir anything’?

I think it’s time there were compulsory independent autopsies dine fir anyone given these very serious diagnoses because I’m pretty sure these people can’t claim even if it existed psychosomatic has a different likelihood of cancer or other serious conditions yet I’d sure like to think someone is required to keep records of the delays caused potentially by such labels etc if only fir legal purposes that it surely doesn’t really add up

plus the ridiculous thing is if labelling people this way means they can use the treatments and cures they’ve had huge amount of funding and research to develop over many decades then why the need to label people? Or have em gaslighted from an early age ? If you are so keen to help them that is ?

a few things like this don’t fully add up in the logic being a fully squared circle to me , am I missing something they mentioned ?
 
Last edited:
Hoopoe said:
It sounds a bit like "physiological dysregulation predicts later physiological dysregulaton by another name".

The usual circular thinking in the psychosomatic field.
Click to expand...
Yep and here’s the thing , even if there weren’t other issues with it as a ‘correlation’, method and concept

Is what they actually describing something that barely means ‘adolescents who had dysregulation were more likely to have had it in infancy thise those who weren’t dysregukated as adolescents’ but without any ‘confiunders’ (read diagnoses misdescribed as dysregulation and misdiagnoses too) controlled fir. So for example they take a group that include some with ASD and say because that group had more dysregulation in infancy than the ‘not dysregulated’ somehow that’s predictive for all of dysregukation which it certainly isn’t.

I’m also very suspicious that this is using an imposed presumption of ‘normal’ which isn’t based on ‘healthy’ or ‘correct’ or ‘right’ … hiw is it tested and given everything is a reaction to what I assume could itself be abnormal or inappropriate based on context relevant to individuals I think all of these ‘concepts’ in this area need to be strongly interrogated.

is someone dysregaukated if they are actually just put in an environment that would antagonise anyone on a regular basis and such reactions would/should be seen as bith predictable and normal if understood fir their whole context. One example is that if someone is dirt poor then losing something or being told it’s gone would be more likely to have significance at a lower monetary value vs those who see cheaper things as replaceable/disposable to dye their financial situation. Same thing if someone has eg sensory sensitivities being antagonised during what apparently is an equal task to all of just ‘emotion’ in response to x. But then for those people it’s y + x (not just x). And so on.

I can’t help but think of lessons learned in eg IQ tests being designed for certain races, nationalities , class in-knowledge and teaching without them noticing that’s what they were actually testing fir tests apparently

how could we assume peoples definitions of hurtful or unkind or the like be judged only by those who are not only removed from the situation of those being tested but who haven’t calibrated fif then either?
 
I think there are serious issues with the ethics of this study.

Like with Lifelines, the psychosomatic movement takes data from mass surveillance and then uses it for their own ends, and I wonder if that is done with informed consent (truly or even any) from the people whose data they use to promote the psychosomatic narrative. I discussed two earlier concerns with Lifelines and Rosmalen here, where they used data collected from people with various chronic illnesses to fuel a psychosomatic narrative around their conditions (or even actively persuaded people to let their children participate without giving them full understanding of what they were doing).
Münker said:
Study population
This study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework platform (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HB2UE). We used data from the CCC2000 [36], a longitudinal population-based birth cohort study including all children born in one of 16 municipalities in the former Copenhagen County, Denmark (N = 6090), which was representative of the Danish child population regarding perinatal and sociodemographic characteristics [36]. The unique Danish civil registration number assigned to all Danish citizens at birth was used to keep track and invite cohort members to participate in the respective follow-up waves. The current study includes data from assessment waves at ages 0–1 years (i.e., infancy), 11–12 (i.e., pre-adolescence), and 16–17 (i.e., late adolescence). Attrition analyses throughout the different assessment waves found lower participation rates in families with lower annual income; immigrant background; single-, smoking-, younger-, and less educated mothers; and a parental- or child psychiatric disorder history [36].
Click to expand...
All children born in Copenhagen are registered. So you can't escape this, the child has no choice. There is also no true privacy, as the data can be led back to the individual. When cohort members were "invited back" this was through their parents, again no agency for the child. And how was this presented to the parents? Was it clear for the parents that the data collected from their children would be used to create a psychosomatic narrative about them, or were they told it would be helpful for scientists and future children to track their child's mental health?
I suspect that the parents are unaware of this, and that it was probably also explained to them in a way that was either misleading or soft-focus truth that does not alarm parents. When CCC2000 says it will link to the national database and combine it with their own data to "investigate physical, mental and social indicators of psychopathology prospectively from birth" that sounds not too bad if you are unaware that what they are basically doing is generating and using big data on children to promote the psychosomatic ideology and normalise the use of its framework on people because it appears scientific.

I'm not being hyperbolic, this shit does remind me frightingly much of the operations of the ERA (Eugenics Records Office, which mass-collected biological and social information of the US population and then used it to produce propaganda for their movement and make it seem scientific and acceptable.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom