Evidence Relationship: Supports
Vote on whether "An independent 8-year cohort (n=611) failed to replicate the prospective generalization-to-onset effect (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84-1.34)" is good evidence that supports the claim "Threat-generalization gradients at age 14 predicted depression onset at age 26 among adolescents with no depressive symptoms at assessment"
Evidence Claim
An independent 8-year cohort (n=611) failed to replicate the prospective generalization-to-onset effect (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84-1.34)
Brannigan & Suh (2024) ran a near-identical protocol in an urban US sample with higher baseline adversity. The prospective association was null. The authors attribute the discrepancy to ceiling effects in generalization scores under high chronic-stress exposure and to a shorter follow-up capturing fewer onsets (n=57 vs 214).
Main Claim
Threat-generalization gradients at age 14 predicted depression onset at age 26 among adolescents with no depressive symptoms at assessment
Restricting the Okonjo cohort to the 902 participants scoring below clinical threshold on the MFQ at every assessment through age 18, steeper age-14 generalization still predicted adult onset (HR 1.41 per SD, p = .003). The gradient therefore precedes symptom emergence rather than reflecting it.
Log in to join the discussion.
With 57 onsets they had about 40% power for HR 1.41. Calling this a failed replication overstates it — the CI includes the original point estimate's lower half.
We say 'did not replicate', not 'refuted', in the paper. The ceiling-effect analysis is the part I'd actually defend.