In the realm of prenatal development, perinatal markers have been linked to psychiatric symptoms in offspring. However, the question of whether these markers are specifically tied to the development of particular disorders remains understudied. This research delves into the potential specificity of perinatal markers in relation to the emergence of adolescent substance use disorders (SUDs).
Methodology
This study engaged adolescent participants from two distinct study centers, catering to SUD patients (n = 196) and general psychopathology cases (n = 307) respectively. Given the co-occurrence of various disorders among SUD participants, a meticulous 1-on-1 matching process was carried out, factoring in age, gender, and the particular constellation of comorbid conditions. This meticulous matching yielded n = 51 participants from each cohort. Comprehensive data was collected from all participants and their mothers, encompassing perinatal markers (such as birth method, gestational weeks, birth weight, and Apgar score after 5 minutes), along with intelligence quotient (IQ) measurements. Moreover, the SUD sample completed the Youth Safe Report (YSR), as well as the PQ-16 and DUDIT assessments. The primary goal was to utilize logistic regression analysis to differentiate between the two groups (SUD sample vs. general psychiatric sample) based on the perinatal variables. Further, linear regression analyses were executed for the entire cohort as well as subgroups, aiming to elucidate the connection between perinatal markers and IQ, YSR scores, DUDIT results, and PQ-16 outcomes.
Findings
Remarkably, perinatal variables did not hold the predictive power to discern group membership (X2 [4] = 4.77, p = .312, Cox & Snell R² = 0.053). The odds ratios subtly indicated a slight elevated likelihood of being classified within the general psychiatric cohort instead of the SUD group when birth was delivered via C-section. Post Bonferroni-correction, the linear regression models revealed no substantial association between perinatal markers and IQ (p = .60, R² = 0.068), YSR scores (p = .09, R² = 0.121), DUDIT results (p = .65, R² = 0.020), or PQ-16 outcomes (p = .73, R² = 0.021).
Conclusions
Intriguingly, the discernment of SUD patients from those with diverse psychopathologies could not be facilitated by perinatal markers. This intriguing pattern challenges earlier findings, positing that our chosen markers might reflect overarching processes rather than nuanced mechanistic explanations. Moving forward, future investigations must meticulously explore specific prenatal markers and their intricate ties to psychopathology at the symptom level.
