Abstract As screens are increasingly integrated into every facet of modern life, there is growing concern over the potential effects of high screen time. Previous studies have largely utilized self-report data on mood and behavioral aspects of screen time, and no molecular theory has yet been developed. In this study, we explored the fecal microbiome and metabolome of a diverse group of 60 college students, classified by high (≥ 75 min/day) or low (0–75 min/day) self-reported screen time using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, targeted liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and targeted detection of short-chain fatty acids using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Several key taxa and metabolites were significantly altered between groups and found to be highly co-occurrent. Results of pathway and enzyme enrichment analyses were synthesized to articulate an integrated hypothesis indicating widespread mitochondrial dysfunction and aberrant amino acid metabolism. High screen time was also predicted to be significantly associated with type I diabetes, obesity, chronic fatigue syndrome, and various manifestations of inflammatory bowel. This is the first-ever study to report the effects of high screen time at the molecular level, and these results provide a data-driven hypothesis for future experimental research. Open access, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-07381-3
"High screen time was also predicted to be significantly associated with type I diabetes, obesity, chronic fatigue syndrome, and various manifestations of inflammatory bowel. This is the first-ever study to report the effects of high screen time at the molecular level, and these results provide a data-driven hypothesis for future experimental research." Researchers have discovered that people with chronic illnesses have higher screen time! Wow, what a revelation. And they have then decided that the molecular changes in those patients are due to the high screen time.....
I have no idea what this is saying about ME/CFS - I suspect nothing. The two references that are used to justify ME/CFS inclusion are Naviaux et al Metabolic features of chronic fatigue syndrome ,how that work is linked to this is not explicit, at least it is not made so in the text; there is also this The Gut Microbiome and the Brain which is quoted on the basis of gut biota. This all looks pretty thin and the researchers seem to have done no more than trawl data bases and throw in any disease that might add significance to their findings.
I had neither a TV nor a home computer nor a mobile phone when I first developed ME, though I did use screens for about 20% of my working day. But obviously getting and using such devices as my health has subsequent deteriorated indicates how harmful they are as they manage to retrospectively trigger my ME before I even had such devices.
I think there should be more rigorous testing to get into universities, and then even more stringent testing for graduate school, although this would empty out psychology departments. Perhaps, and only perhaps, there would be less of this type of 'research.'
It looks like they probably had a PhD student with a project to analyse poo, and needing an easily accessible set of participants and chose students. And they needed some other easily obtained data to provided stats they could analuse, so used a set of questionnaires asking them about dietary intake, physical activity and screen time with the hope that they would find something in the participants lives that chanced to provide the desired significant probability so they could say they had discovered something. It seems crazy to me that they went to all that trouble to do complicated biological poo analysis, yet they relied on unreliable self report for all the factors they were trying to correlate. Self reported diet and activity are notoriously unreliable, and they only found a few positive correlations and don't seem to have corrected for multiple comparisons. Also there were only 14 students in the low screen use group, so hardly a reliable basis for such conclusions.