Evidence Hub

Cumulative adverse childhood experiences increase migraine risk in later life in China: evidence from CHARLS with mediation and Mendelian randomization

Duan L, Liu L, He Y, Zhong S, Wu W, Yang X, Cai D

The journal of headache and pain, 2026

8,410 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are significant early-life stressors with long-term health impacts. Migraine is a prevalent, debilitating neurological disorder in middle-aged/elderly populations, often accompanied by depression. However, evidence on ACEs' influence on migraine risk in this demographic and the mediating role of depression is limited in Chinese populations. Using China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) data, the research investigated the connection of cumulative ACEs exposure with migraine risk in middle-aged/elderly individuals and examined depressive symptoms as a mediator.

METHODS: 8,410 participants (≥ 45 years) from CHARLS (2011-2020) were analyzed. Standardized questionnaires assessed cumulative ACEs, migraine, and depressive symptoms. Multivariable COX regression analyzed the ACEs-migraine association. Bootstrap mediation analysis quantified depression's mediating role. Mendelian randomization (MR) was used for validation.

RESULTS: After covariate adjustment, each additional ACE point increased migraine risk by 18% (HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.13-1.22, p < 0.001). Individuals with ≥ 4 ACEs had remarkably higher migraine risk compared to those with none (HR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.64-2.41). Depressive symptoms significantly mediated 21.5% (95% CI: 16.3% - 29.0%, P < 0.01) of the connection of ACEs with migraine. ACEs increased migraine risk both directly and indirectly via heightened depressive symptoms. MR confirmed ACEs…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 8,410 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free