They also really didn't control for many things - while this may have been due to sample size, it seriously limited the conclusions
-
Show this thread
-
They didn't, for example, control for maternal alcohol or drug intake, which can both have a HUGE impact on childrens' mental health
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
The absolute risk increase was also pretty miniscule Kids exposed to no stress had a 0.5% risk of developing personality disorders Kids exposed to some stress had a 1.6% risk Triple the odds, but only 1.1% risk increase!pic.twitter.com/qTpdRcW2oP
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
Also, the study assessed stress using one questionnaire given partway through the pregnancy in 1975, which I'd argue is...problematic
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
On top of all of this, the study used a statistical technique called logistic regression Without going into the details, this is very questionable for a study like this
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Basically, if you have too few outcomes (i.e. only 40) in your sample, and include a bunch of covariates in the statistical model, you end up with a bit of a meaningless result I mean, just look at those confidence intervals!pic.twitter.com/kIKGKcoSov
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
(As a side note, there appear to be a few numerical errors in the paper, such as this one in the table above)pic.twitter.com/XB7m1aiQ20
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
If you read that table, kids exposed to "any" stress have 3.37x the odds of having any diagnosis of personality disorders, but the confidence interval goes from 1.61x to 7.07x That's ~huge~
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
TL:DR: - association between stress in pregnancy and kids getting personality disorders - very weak - risk increase is tiny - statistical analysis is problematic - HUGE potential for residual confounding - ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING FOR MUMS TO WORRY ABOUT
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
Now, while the media certainly had a role to play in the misinterpretation of this study, I think the problem started in the conclusions This is not well worded at allpic.twitter.com/cIm8jvpLvi
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread
The authors have been quoted elsewhere saying that this definitely isn't causal, but if you read the conclusions of the study it sounds like it absolutely is That's a huge problem
-
-
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.