Sleep disturbances are key predictors of mental health issues in adolescents: study
The comprehensive study involving over 11,000 adolescents from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) study revealed that sleep disturbances are a significant predictor of future mental health issues, including depression and anxiety.
The study, conducted by a team of senior medical scientists at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, US, found that sleep problems were more predictive of mental health concerns than other known risk factors such as adverse childhood experiences and family history of mental illness.
Interestingly, brain imaging data (MRI scans) did not enhance the ability to predict mental health risks, suggesting that psychosocial factors like sleep disturbances may be more crucial indicators.
The study followed adolescents aged 9 to 15 years, with approximately 48% female participants, who underwent various assessments, including sleep quality evaluations and brain imaging.
The researchers used Machine Learning models developed to analyse the data and predict future mental health outcomes.
Implications for Mental Health
According to senior psychiatrists Dr Reji Philips, and consultant psychologist Ramon Srivastava, both from Mumbai, recognising sleep disturbances early can help identify adolescents at risk for developing mental health issues, allowing for timely interventions.
Addressing sleep problems in adolescents may serve as an effective strategy to prevent the onset of psychiatric disorders.
Implementing policies that promote healthy sleep habits among adolescents could be beneficial for public health, they say.
However, there were certain limitations in the study in establishing a direct cause and effect relationship sleep disorders with mental health clinically.
The study identifies associations between sleep disturbances and mental health issues but does not confirm a direct cause-and-effect relationship, the report says. Hence additional studies are needed to explore the underlying mechanisms and to develop effective interventions.
Mental health experts, however, agree that while addressing these sleep problems early on can play a crucial role in preventing the development of psychiatric disorders, it highlights the importance of promoting healthy sleep habits and considering sleep quality in mental health assessments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
How conspiracy theories about COVID's origins are hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic
Sydney : In late June, the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a group of independent experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), published an assessment of the origins of COVID . The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from: "a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis." SAGO did not find scientific evidence to support "a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach". This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: COVID most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan , and was not the result of a lab leak. But conspiracy theories about COVID's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic. Attacks on our research As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Like SAGO, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals - a "zoonosis" - caused by the unregulated wildlife trade in China . Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks. The idea SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it. But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner. A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the "preferred" hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange. These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists. So what does the evidence tell us? In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover. In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centres. It's believed that SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province. Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known COVID cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019. Multiple independent data sources, including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among health-care workers indicate COVID first spread in the district where the market is located. In a 2022 study we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold. In a 2024 follow-up study we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals - including raccoon dogs and civets - on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them. This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak. These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the COVID pandemic. Hindering preparedness for the next pandemic Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of COVID have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire. This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from COVID origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness. In the United States this has meant major cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health , the closure of the US Agency for International Development , and withdrawal from the WHO. Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics. The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade. In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the COVID pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it. (The Conversation)
NDTV
14 hours ago
- NDTV
How Covid Origin Theories Are Hampering Our Ability To Prevent Next Pandemic
Sydney: In late June, the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a group of independent experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), published an assessment of the origins of COVID. The report concluded that although we don't know conclusively where the virus that caused the pandemic came from: a zoonotic origin with spillover from animals to humans is currently considered the best supported hypothesis. SAGO did not find scientific evidence to support "a deliberate manipulation of the virus in a laboratory and subsequent biosafety breach". This follows a series of reports and research papers since the early days of the pandemic that have reached similar conclusions: COVID most likely emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan, and was not the result of a lab leak. But conspiracy theories about COVID's origins persist. And this is hampering our ability to prevent the next pandemic. Attacks on our research As experts in the emergence of viruses, we published a peer-reviewed paper in Nature Medicine in 2020 on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. Like SAGO, we evaluated several hypotheses for how a novel coronavirus could have emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. We concluded the virus very likely emerged through a natural spillover from animals - a "zoonosis" - caused by the unregulated wildlife trade in China. Since then, our paper has become a focal point of conspiracy theories and political attacks. The idea SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a laboratory is not, in itself, a conspiracy theory. Like many scientists, we considered that possibility seriously. And we still do, although evidence hasn't emerged to support it. But the public discourse around the origin of the pandemic has increasingly been shaped by political agendas and conspiratorial narratives. Some of this has targeted our work and vilified experts who have studied this question in a data-driven manner. A common conspiracy theory claims senior officials pressured us to promote the " preferred" hypothesis of a natural origin, while silencing the possibility of a lab leak. Some conspiracy theories even propose we were rewarded with grant funding in exchange. These narratives are false. They ignore, dismiss or misrepresent the extensive body of evidence on the origin of the pandemic. Instead, they rely on selective quoting from private discussions and a distorted portrayal of the scientific process and the motivations of scientists. So what does the evidence tell us? In the five years since our Nature Medicine paper, a substantial body of new evidence has emerged that has deepened our understanding of how SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged through a natural spillover. In early 2020, the case for a zoonotic origin was already compelling. Much-discussed features of the virus are found in related coronaviruses and carry signatures of natural evolution. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. The multi-billion-dollar wildlife trade and fur farming industry in China regularly moves high-risk animals, frequently infected with viruses, into dense urban centres. It's believed that SARS-CoV-1, the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak, emerged this way in 2002 in China's Guangdong province. Similarly, detailed analyses of epidemiological data show the earliest known COVID cases clustered around the Huanan live-animal market in Wuhan, in the Hubei province, in December 2019. Multiple independent data sources, including early hospitalisations, excess pneumonia deaths, antibody studies and infections among health-care workers indicate COVID first spread in the district where the market is located. In a 2022 study we and other experts showed that environmental samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 clustered in the section of the market where wildlife was sold. In a 2024 follow-up study we demonstrated those same samples contained genetic material from susceptible animals - including raccoon dogs and civets - on cages, carts, and other surfaces used to hold and transport them. This doesn't prove infected animals were the source. But it's precisely what we would expect if the market was where the virus first spilled over. And it's contrary to what would be expected from a lab leak. These and all other independent lines of evidence point to the Huanan market as the early epicentre of the COVID pandemic. Hindering preparedness for the next pandemic Speculation and conspiracy theories around the origin of COVID have undermined trust in science. The false balance between lab leak and zoonotic origin theories assigned by some commentators has added fuel to the conspiracy fire. This anti-science agenda, stemming in part from COVID origin conspiracy theories, is being used to help justify deep cuts to funding for biomedical research, public health and global aid. These areas are essential for pandemic preparedness. In the United States this has meant major cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, the closure of the US Agency for International Development, and withdrawal from the WHO. Undermining trust in science and public health institutions also hinders the development and uptake of life-saving vaccines and other medical interventions. This leaves us more vulnerable to future pandemics. The amplification of conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID has promoted a dangerously flawed understanding of pandemic risk. The idea that a researcher discovered or engineered a pandemic virus, accidentally infected themselves, and unknowingly sparked a global outbreak (in exactly the type of setting where natural spillovers are known to occur) defies logic. It also detracts from the significant risk posed by the wildlife trade. In contrast, the evidence-based conclusion that the COVID pandemic most likely began with a virus jumping from animals to humans highlights the very real risk we increasingly face. This is how pandemics start, and it will happen again. But we're dismantling our ability to stop it or prepare for it. (Author: , NHMRC Leadership Fellow and Professor of Virology, University of Sydney; Andrew Rambaut, Professor of Molecular Evolution, University of Edinburgh; Kristian Andersen, Professor; Director of Infectious Disease Genomics, The Scripps Research Institute, and Robert Garry, Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Tulane University) (Disclaimer Statement: Edward C Holmes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). He has received consultancy fees from Pfizer Australia and Moderna, and has previously held honorary appointments (for which he has received no renumeration and performed no duties) at the China CDC in Beijing and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center (Fudan University). Andrew Rambaut receives funding from The Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation. Kristian G. Andersen receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Gates Foundation. He is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Invivyd, Inc. and has consulted on topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other infectious diseases. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are solely those of the author in their personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of Scripps Research, its leadership, faculty, staff, or its scientific collaborators or affiliates. Scripps Research does not endorse or take responsibility for any statements made in this piece. Robert Garry has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. He is a co-founder of Zalgen Labs, a biotechnology company developing countermeasures for emerging viruses.) This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
Physicists still divided about quantum world, 100 years on
AI image PARIS: The theory of quantum mechanics has transformed daily life since being proposed a century ago, yet how it works remains a mystery and physicists are deeply divided about what is actually going on, a survey in the journal Nature said Wednesday. "Shut up and calculate!" is a famous quote in quantum physics that illustrates the frustration of scientists struggling to unravel one of the world's great paradoxes. For the last century, equations based on quantum mechanics have consistently and accurately described the behaviour of extremely small objects. However, no one knows what is happening in the physical reality behind the mathematics. The problem started at the turn of the 20th century, when scientists realised that the classical principles of physics did not apply to things on the level on atoms. Bafflingly, photons and electrons appear to behave like both particles and waves. They can also be in different positions simultaneously -- and have different speeds or levels of energy. In 1925, Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger and Germany's Werner Heisenberg developed a set of complex mathematical tools that describe quantum mechanics using probabilities. This "wave function" made it possible to predict the results of measurements of a particle. These equations led to the development of a huge amount of modern technology, including lasers, LED lights, MRI scanners and the transistors used in computers and phones. But the question remained: what exactly is happening in the world beyond the maths? A confusing cat To mark the 100th year of quantum mechanics, many of the world's leading physicists gathered last month on the German island of Heligoland, where Heisenberg wrote his famous equation. More than 1,100 of them responded to a survey conducted by the leading scientific journal Nature. The results showed there is a "striking lack of consensus among physicists about what quantum theory says about reality", Nature said in a statement. More than a third, 36 per cent, of the respondents favoured the most widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation . In the classical world, everything has defined properties, such as position or speed, whether we observe them or not. But this is not the case in the quantum realm, according to the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Heisenberg and Danish physicist Niels Bohr in the 1920s. It is only when an observer measures a quantum object that it settles on a specific state from the possible options, goes the theory. This is described as its wave function "collapsing" into a single possibility. The most famous depiction of this idea is Schroedinger's cat , which remains simultaneously alive and dead in a box, until someone peeks inside. The Copenhagen interpretation "is the simplest we have", Brazilian physics philosopher Decio Krause told Nature after responding to the survey. Despite the theory's problems, such as not explaining why measurement has this effect, the alternatives "present other problems which, to me, are worse," he said. Enter the multiverse But the majority of the physicists supported other ideas. Fifteen per cent of the respondents opted for the "many worlds" interpretation, one of several theories in physics that propose we live in a multiverse. It asserts that the wave function does not collapse, but instead branches off into as many universes as there are possible outcomes. So when an observer measures a particle, they get the position for their world -- but it is in all other possible positions across many parallel universes. "It requires a dramatic readjustment of our intuitions about the world, but to me that's just what we should expect from a fundamental theory of reality," US theoretical physicist Sean Carroll said in the survey. The quantum experts were split on other big questions facing the field. Is there some kind of boundary between the quantum and classical worlds, where the laws of physics suddenly change? Forty-five per cent of the physicists responded yes to this question and the exact same percentage responded no. Just 24 per cent said they were confident the quantum interpretation they chose was correct. And three-quarters believed that it will be replaced by a more comprehensive theory one day.
