Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of non-suicidal self-injury: a meta-analysis

BackgroundSystematically evaluate the association between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and the risk of Non-suicidal Self-Injury (NSSI), thereby providing evidence-based guidance for relevant prevention and early intervention strategies.MethodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, from their inception to 30 November 2025, to identify observational studies reporting associations between ACEs and NSSI. Two researchers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model, with association strength expressed as odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data analysis was conducted using Stata 15.ResultsA total of 13 articles included. The meta-analysis results suggest that physical abuse [OR = 2.38, 95% CI (1.36, 4.16), I2 = 99%], sexual abuse [OR = 1.88, 95% CI (1.24, 2.87), I2 = 94.9%], ACEs≥2 [OR = 3.23, 95% CI (2.62, 3.99), I2 = 89.9%], ACEs≥3 [OR = 6.13, 95% CI (4.07, 9.24), I2 = 96.9%], emotional abuse [OR = 1.65, 95% CI (1.18, 2.32), I2 = 97.9%] may increase the risk of NSSI.ConclusionIn summary, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest that exposure to adverse childhood experiences may be related to an increased likelihood of non-suicidal self-injury. Different forms of childhood adversity, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse, as well as cumulative exposure to multiple ACEs, were associated with higher risks of NSSI.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42026128495.

Dimensional phenotype measurement in children with rare genetic conditions: new insights into the aetiology of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders

Rare neurodevelopmental genetic conditions (NGCs) present with diverse and complex phenotypic manifestations, often resulting in a range of clinical and cognitive difficulties that cut across traditional, categorically defined neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric diagnoses. Traditional categorical diagnostic frameworks have significant limitations in capturing the full complexity and heterogeneity of these phenotypes. This perspective reviews current advances in the field, highlighting the benefits of dimensional frameworks like the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Dimensional approaches have shown promise in capturing subthreshold symptoms and behavioural dimensions predictive of later neuropsychiatric outcomes. The transition to dimensional frameworks offers significant potential for improving diagnostic accuracy and informing personalised treatment strategies. However, the field remains hindered by the lack of standardised and validated dimensional assessment tools. Future research should focus on developing new assessment tools that are specifically designed for NGCs and are culturally and neurodivergence sensitive, with researchers, clinicians, and families codeveloping measures to ensure the practical application of these tools.

Parent-mediated early intervention in infants and toddlers at elevated likelihood for autism: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

The current prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has risen to 1 in 31, according to a recent report of the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While prodromal signs of ASD can be observed during the first months of life, most care approaches usually require a diagnosis before children can receive autism-specialized intervention services. A novel approach consists in providing parent-mediated intervention to infants higher likelihood for autism with the aim to decrease disability and perhaps impacting on developmental trajectory. The aim of this review is to summarize evidence on outcomes from Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) of parent-mediated early interventions in infants with very early ASD signs and/or with an elevated likelihood for ASD, in order to inform clinical practice. A systematic literature search was performed by using the following databases from 2014 until 17 February 2025: Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, OVID (PsycInfo). Papers were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: i) RCT studies; ii) Mean age of children enrolled in RCT studies ≤ 18 months; iii) English language published studies; iv) Infants presenting autistic signs or infants at elevated likelihood for ASD. Eleven studies were included and analyzed in regard to sample characteristics, enrollment strategies, outcome measures and intervention types.

STAT+: FDA pushes drugmakers to report missing clinical trial results

In a bid toward greater transparency, the Food and Drug Administration sent reminder letters to more than 2,200 companies and researchers that they are required to report clinical trial results to a federal government database or they may face fines.

FDA officials disclosed that an internal analysis found results were not submitted for nearly 30% of studies that were “highly likely” to fall under mandatory reporting requirements. The agency also noted that the letters were sent to companies and researchers associated with more than 3,000 registered trials, some of which were publicly funded.

In explaining its move, the regulator acknowledged a long-standing complaint from researchers who have argued that without access to specific data, trial results cannot be easily duplicated, which inhibits greater understanding of how medicines might work. They also contend this can adversely affect treatment decisions and health care costs.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

STAT+: Federal judge tosses California No Surprises Act lawsuit against HaloMD

A federal judge has tossed one of the four pending civil lawsuits against HaloMD, a company that represents providers in No Surprises Act arbitration cases. 

The ruling, which grants HaloMD’s motion to dismiss, represents a major win for the Texas-based middleman, which quickly rose to become the number one user of the federal arbitration process in the first half of 2025. The judge found that Anthem Blue Cross of California’s lawsuit failed to establish a legal basis for invalidating HaloMD’s arbitration wins against the company. 

Lawsuits from four Blue Cross Blue Shield plans alleged that many of the disputes in which HaloMD prevailed weren’t actually eligible for arbitration. The lawsuits claimed to reveal a costly side effect of the process: Providers could potentially game the system to extract more money from health insurers for out-of-network services than they got before the surprise billing law passed. 

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…