ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2020
Accumulation of childhood adversities and type 1 diabetes risk: a register-based cohort study of all children born in Denmark between 1980 and 2015.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse childhood experiences and risk of diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Bereavement and type 1 diabetes in childhood: a register-based cohort study in Sweden.Diabetologia · 2025Article
- Risk factors for anorexia nervosa: A population-based investigation of sex differences in polygenic risk and early life exposures.The International journal of eating disorders · 2023Article
- Adverse childhood experiences and incident coronary heart disease: a counterfactual analysis in the Whitehall II prospective cohort study.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have indicated an association between childhood adversities and type 1 diabetes but have been underpowered and limited by selection. We aim to quantify the effect of accumulation of childhood adversities on type 1 diabetes risk, and to assess whether the effect differs between males and females in a large and unselected population sample.
methodsWe used register-based data covering all children born in Denmark between 1980 and 2015, totalling >2 million children. We specified a multi-state model to quantify the effect of accumulation of childhood adversities on type 1 diabetes risk. The effects of specific childhood adversities on type 1 diabetes were estimated using proportional hazards models.
resultsAccumulation of childhood adversities had a quantitatively small effect on type 1 diabetes risk among females [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) per adversity increase: 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.11], but not among males (adjusted HR per adversity increase: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97-1.03). Females exposed to extreme numbers (7+) of adversities had two times higher risk of type 1 diabetes compared with unexposed females (adjusted HR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.10-3.86).
conclusionsIn an unselected total population sample, we generally find no or negligible effects of childhood adversities on type 1 diabetes risk, which may be reassuring to persons with type 1 diabetes who are concerned that personal trauma contributed to their disease. There is a very small group of females exposed to a high degree of adversity who may have a higher risk of type 1 diabetes and this group needs further attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.