Paul Nathan Goldwater- Adelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
This Viewpoint paper presents a timely and constructive critique of mainstream SIDS research. It is concerning that twenty-first century medical science has not provided an answer to the tragic enigma of SIDS. The paper helps explain why this is so and illustrates possible shortcomings in the investigation of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome/Sudden Unexplained Infant Death (SIDS/SUID) by mainstream researchers. Mainstream findings are often based on questionable and dogmatic assumptions that return to founding notions such as the Triple Risk Hypothesis and the contention that the mechanisms underlying SIDS/SUID are heterogeneous in nature. The paper illustrates how the pathological findings in SIDS have been under-investigated (or ignored) and that key epidemiological risk factors have slipped from memory. This apparent amnesia has resulted in failure to use these established SIDS facts to substantiate the significance of various neuropathological, neurochemical, or other research findings. These unsupported findings and their derivative hypotheses are therefore ill-founded and lack scientific rigor.
Conclusion: The deficits of SIDS “science” revealed in this paper explain why the SIDS enigma has not yet been solved. To make progress in understanding SIDS, it is important that researchers, as scientists, uphold standards of research. Encouragement for new directions of research is offered.
Introduction
Over the past 30 years, as a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)/Sudden Unexplained Infant Death (SUID) researcher, the author has followed mainstream's progress and has realized that mainstream approaches to the problem are flawed at a fundamental level. To address this, leading peer-reviewed publications were reviewed using PubMed and Google Scholar (search terms: “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,” “SIDS”) to provide evidence as to why the SIDS enigma remains unexplained. Where possible, papers cited were selected on the basis of the senior author having published a minimum of 10 papers on the subject and that the papers concerned the prevailing hypotheses on SIDS. While this paper is a critique of mainstream research, its aim, through the arguments herein put, is to encourage SIDS researchers to reconsider their hypotheses in the hope of yielding improved research outcomes.
Discussion
There are not many issues in medical science that lack explanation. It could be argued that current mainstream SIDS research remains at a stage not dissimilar to that of peptic ulceration in the pre-Helicobacter era. To achieve an understanding of a condition, respect must be paid to the essential elements of the condition: these elements include the epidemiology (e.g., risk factors), the pathology (including the laboratory findings), and the physiological findings. Based on these, a case definition is developed. The definition of SIDS has undergone several iterations (1–3). The often-used San Diego definition (3) states “the sudden and unexpected death of an infant under 1 year of age, with the onset of the lethal episode, apparently occurring during sleep, that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation including a performance of a complete autopsy, and review of the circumstances of death and the clinical history.” The definition is unhelpful in that its usefulness is limited to being exclusive. However, this definition, in extended form, is more helpful than previous ones, as it provides categories based on some pathological findings. All definitions could be misleading in relation to the reference to sleep. This allusion has led many researchers to explore physiological events during infant sleep, and such work has extended to investigate arousal mechanisms (4, 5). With very few exceptions, the results of these investigations do not refer to epidemiological risk factors or the gross pathological findings of SIDS. Therefore, these findings are unsupported in obvious ways. Death during sleep is not a prerequisite for diagnosing SIDS/SUID: cases occur in awake infants (6), although the San Diego definition (3) with its “during sleep” restriction would exclude these cases. Such restriction is only academic, as proof of being asleep cannot be ascertained. Additionally, it is known that SIDS occurs at all times of the day, suggesting that an infant could have been awake. Most SIDS cases occur between midnight and 0600 h (7).
A more recent development regarding the SIDS definition deemed as a new classification of SUID has surfaced, which is heavily weighted toward asphyxia as the underlying event (8). The study re-examined cases originally designated SIDS; a panel of reviewers ascertained that asphyxia potentially contributed to death in 40–59% of the cases based on a potentially risky sleeping environment. The authors “suggest that SIDS not be used if a potential (but not necessarily proven) other cause of death exists.” This should raise many questions: no mention in this article of extrathoracic petechial hemorrhages was made. Such a pathological finding would raise suspicion and strongly indicate an asphyxial mode of death. Other risk factors, such as prone sleeping and features of infection, were not examined, nor were the ages of cases reported; asphyxia appears to be uncommon in older cases than the peak age (2–4 months) of SIDS. In a similar study, Garstang et al. (9) found that only 14% of SUID could be reclassified as caused by asphyxia, which puts the findings of Randall et al. under further question.
The Importance of Autopsy Findings
In understanding the fundamental facts about SIDS, the shortcomings of mainstream SIDS/SUID research will become obvious. The current dogma purports that the gross pathology of SIDS is unremarkable (10). This is fundamentally erroneous. As with the investigation of adult deaths the autopsy remains the mainstay for proper diagnosis (11). The same applies to the investigation of SIDS. Standardized autopsy protocols go some way in improving the investigation of sudden deaths but these, unfortunately, are not universally applied. In regard to SIDS, where autopsies have been conducted by pediatric pathologists, it is remarkable that the pathological findings (12, 13) are very consistent and can be applied to approximately 90% of cases. The gross findings include
• Intrathoracic petechial hemorrhages in and on the thymus, epicardium, and visceral pleura/lungs.
• Heavy fluid-laden lungs with early subtle acute inflammatory changes.
• Heavier than normal thymus (13, 14), brain (13–21) and liver (13, 22, 23).
• Liquid blood in the chambers of the heart (12).
• Empty bladder (12).
• Raised core temperature (24).
The autopsy extends to histopathological findings and laboratory findings. These are discussed below.
Laboratory Data
As part of the autopsy investigation, laboratory findings can also provide clues to underlying pathogenetic mechanisms in SIDS/SUID. These include increased tissue proinflammatory cytokines IFN-alpha, TNF and IL-6 (25–30), including increased IL-6 in cerebrospinal fluid and vitreous in the eye (26, 31). Raised serum fibrin degradation products (FDPs, D-dimer) (32) provide another clue, as does lower than normal serum melatonin (33). Infection and sepsis stimulate the release of serotonin, increasing serum levels of this related hormone (34). Histopathological findings also support the infection model. These include low-grade lung inflammation (35) and/or myocardial inflammation (35) and changes typical of haematogenous shock (36) and shock-like diaphragmatic muscular degeneration (37, 38). Neuropathological features that could reflect shock include neuronal apoptosis (39) and microglial activation (40). Microbiological investigation reveals detection of bacterial toxins in SIDS tissues (41, 42), isolation of bacterial pathogens (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli) from normally sterile sites (43, 44), and despite these clues, infection and sepsis have not been widely examined in relation to most aspects of SIDS research and despite the findings of those proposing the Infection Model of SIDS (25–32, 35, 41–49).
While serotonin has been a major focus of SIDS research, the work has lacked meaningful results because there has been no or minimal supporting epidemiological or clinicopathological correlation (50). Without this, interpretation of results is impossible. In regard to serotonin levels, these are confusing; for example, some studies show raised blood levels (50), while brainstem levels of tryptophan hydroxylase and serotonin receptor binding were found to be lowered (51). This seems counterintuitive. Moreover, important correlations with SIDS risk factors could not be found in these publications.
Physiological Clues
Also important are clinicophysiological findings (52): computer memory monitored babies have been recorded as apparent SIDS/SUID deaths. These recordings demonstrated bradycardia followed by asystole. Gasping respirations and cessation of breathing followed the cardiological events and suggest that the cause lies within the heart rather than respiratory control. Prone sleeping has been assumed to be related to asphyxia, but its likely real reason for increased SIDS risk has been overlooked (vide infra).
Triple Risk Hypothesis
In fashioning a research direction, a number of models incorporating known risk factors have been proposed and refined (53–55). These eventuated in the SIDS “triple risk” model (56, 57). It supposes that the risk of SIDS is increased when a vulnerable infant is exposed to environmental stressors. The three components of the model are (1) a critical developmental period in homeostatic control (from 1 to 6 months, especially 2–4 months, the “SIDS peak”); (2) exposure to stressors (overheating, infection), and (3) underlying susceptibilities (age, sex, race, etc.) (57). The model has since been modified, but its essence remains much the same (57). Guntheroth and Spiers (57) concluded after analyzing in detail the series of hypotheses… “The advantage of any of the triple risk hypotheses in understanding SIDS has not been demonstrated.” This warning has not been heeded, and researchers still use the triple risk hypothesis as a platform upon which they base their research. More recently, Spinelli et al. (58) errantly continue the notion of its usefulness: the authors state that it… “assists in helping to conceptualize SIDS” and “continues to provide an extremely useful framework to guide current and future research.” Of additional concern is the emphasis of the triple risk hypothesis on homeostatic control. This has been misleading and requires new thinking.
In seeking a homeostatic control answer, researchers tried to link apparent abnormalities in the brainstems of SIDS cases (59, 60). They found that 40–50% of SIDS babies' brainstems appeared abnormal. Some controls had similar abnormalities.
This led a quest for a common underlying pathogenetic mechanism and advanced the theory of failure in homeostatic control (breathing and/or cardiac arrhythmia) to be central to SIDS. This approach has yet to provide a definitive answer despite concerted efforts. This focus on homeostatic control has generally ignored [with a few exceptions (39)] the key clinicopathological and epidemiological findings herein set out. The physiological monitoring information clearly relates to cardiac control (52). Investigation into the heart (and potential underlying mechanisms, e.g., sepsis) is therefore appropriate. Continuation of respiratory control research without physiological evidence of an abnormality in respiratory control would deem this line of research fruitless. Evidence of chronic hypoxia in some SIDS cases (11, 61) may have led researchers to explore a respiratory-based paradigm; however, data pertaining to “chronic hypoxia” are contradictory (62) and place this paradigm on shaky ground. Consideration of and active research into other possible causes of hypoxia (sepsis being one) (62, 63) has not occurred.
Infection and Epidemiology
Several authors have hypothesized that SIDS could be caused by a dual infection with a respiratory virus and toxigenic bacteria (22, 41–49).
The epidemiology and gross pathology of SIDS clearly demonstrate evidence for respiratory viral infection, which could possibly act as a SIDS trigger (48). In many studies, more than 75% of SIDS babies featured recent or active respiratory tract infections (64, 65).
In matched case-control studies, living babies showed rates of infection similar to those of SIDS and reflected the epidemiology extant at the time. Numerous studies [reviewed by Prandota et al. (66)] have attempted to demonstrate a link between respiratory infection and SIDS. These studies naturally were unable to show a difference in viral infection [and lung pathology (67)] between SIDS and controls. However, the results of the study by Bajanowski et al. (68) favored the hypothesis that respiratory viral infection could act as a trigger in SIDS. Despite the positive findings of Bajanowski et al. (68) researchers tended to discount the possible role of infection in SIDS. Regrettably, this attitude has largely continued to this day, despite all the established infection-related epidemiological features listed below:
• seasonality (the winter peak) (47, 69)
• a pronounced association with epidemic viral diseases, including influenza A (70, 71)
• Acute illness (e.g., URTI/otitis media) with symptoms present at the time of death but are not significant as a cause of death (72). Susceptibility to infection could be influenced by genetic make-up (vide infra)
• male sex (73)
• Low socioeconomic status (74), as measured by deprivation indices, overcrowding, maternal age and maternal education, etc.
• sleeping on contaminated surfaces (the parental or other shared bed (75), used mattress (76), or sofa (77)
• high birth order wherein older siblings bring viral infection home (78)
• prematurity/preterm birth (79)
• smoke exposure (80)
• lack of breastfeeding (81)
• waning maternal transplacental IgG (82)
• Overcrowding, low socioeconomic status (74, 83)
• Prone sleep position (the effect of this appears only to operate when there is a coincident infection) (84–86) (vide infra).
Prone Sleep Position and Infection
The above features uphold the infection model for SIDS. Interaction between viral respiratory tract infection, prone sleeping and secondary nasopharyngeal bacterial flora changes leading to fatal sepsis provides a simple and plausible mechanism (48, 49).
The role of infection in SIDS has been previously addressed (45, 46) and remains salient. As suggested above, the mechanism underlying SIDS/SUDI could involve an abnormal response to viral respiratory infection at a time a bacterially colonized infant becomes challenged by a bacterial toxin. An experimental model for SIDS was suggested by Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty and his colleagues: mice exposed to a virus and challenged with a staphylococcal enterotoxin died of hematogenous shock when dually exposed. Mice did not die when exposed to the single agents (87).
Except for several research groups (41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 82, 88–94), support for a role of infection has been largely unexplored by mainstream SIDS researchers. The Tasmanian SIDS Study of Ponsonby et al. (84) unaccountably failed to reawaken interest in infection. The study was able to reveal the plausibly true nature and effect of prone sleep position and showed that the risk of SIDS was increased 10-fold if a baby slept prone when it had features of a concurrent upper respiratory tract or other viral-like illness. In addition, the risk of prone sleeping was hardly affected if infants were apparently infection-free. The Nordic Epidemiological Study (85, 86) confirmed the Tasmanian findings and showed an even higher risk (29-fold) of prone-plus-infection. Mainstream SIDS researchers have failed to acknowledge or appreciate this important finding: a nearly two-decade blind spot that may have kept a solution to the SIDS problem in the dark.
Studies featuring epidemiological, sociological and pregnancy risk factors for the prone sleeping position in SIDS often showed a relationship to winter seasonality (95, 96). It is surprising that these studies overlooked the obvious connection with infection. However, other studies had no trouble making the connection (96). It is of value to quote from the latter study by Froggatt et al. (97) “Any orthodox interpretation of our results must ascribe some role to infection, mainly respiratory infection. The greatest incidence is in Belfast among the lowest socioeconomic groups and the most crowded houses, in the coldest months, with serial correlation between SUD frequency and documented major virus epidemics, and with “season”/“city” contingency. Cases in Belfast in the winter being disproportionately prevalent;” (97).
The sleeping position of babies is featured in numerous recent and current SIDS research papers. Researchers have posited (without providing supportive evidence) that prone sleep position has a causal relationship with mortality (98). Such uncorroborated statements are not scientifically acceptable and have until now remained unaddressed. SIDS occurs in supine and side sleeping infants.
Heterogeneous Pathogenesis vs. Single Mode of Death
Another aspect of SIDS research is the dogma promoting the notion of a heterogeneous pathogenetic process. As indicated above, the Triple Risk Hypothesis (56–58) has led the approach to the SIDS problem. The hypothesis' (56–58) focuses on homeostatic control, and the generally accepted abiding notion that SIDS has a heterogeneous pathogenesis deserves further consideration. This question has been put forth in previous publications: (23, 45, 46) why do ~90% of SIDS cases have very similar gross pathological findings? The consistent finding of intrathoracic petechiae involving the thymus, pleura and heart, the unclotted/liquid heart chamber blood, the congested lungs (usually with low-grade inflammatory changes), the empty bladder, the raised core temperature, and the characteristic organ weight findings (a large thymus, brain and liver) (46) make this collective pathology an important phenomenon that could not plausibly be a coincidence. On balance of probability, heterogeneous pathogenesis would imply a panoply of various pathological findings and therefore several implied modes of death. Similar pathological findings in any collection of SIDS/SUID babies logically point to a single mortal process. Other or absent pathological findings (not conforming to the classical gross pathology of SIDS), which could include cases resulting from genetic mutations resulting in cardiac arrhythmia, etc. would be candidates for the remaining ~10% of cases that do not conform to the classical gross pathology of SIDS/SUID. The pathological picture in SIDS should be a guide for future research efforts.
Other Unanswered Questions
These have been discussed in detail previously (99) and deserve brief revisiting. The almost universal finding of intrathoracic petechiae in SIDS stands out as a poorly investigated phenomenon. To date, there have been no transmission electron microscopy or other relevant studies to help ascertain the nature of the vasculopathy. Studies using asphyxiated animals did not provide convincing answers (99). Another almost universal finding is liquid/unclotted blood in SIDS cases. Nevertheless, only one study has investigated this (32) and revealed increased D-dimer (FDPs), strongly suggesting coagulopathy; infection is a possible primary underlying mechanism. The review by Blackwell et al. (89) provides a comprehensive overview of key findings and risk factors and how they act through inflammatory responses and their genetic control. A number of genetic polymorphisms have been shown to be related to infection and inflammatory responses, which could help explain the increased susceptibility in SIDS babies. As indicated above, ethnicity (e.g., Australian Aboriginals and Indigenous North Americans) and male sex provide evidence of increased susceptibility and, obviously, both infer a genetic link; however, these effects can be complicated by socioeconomic and other factors (e.g., smoking) (89). The finding of cardiac ion channel mutations in a small proportion of SIDS cases remains unresolved as to whether death is with or due to the genetic mutation (100).
The consistently observed organ weight changes (heavy thymus, brain and liver) in SIDS deserve fulsome investigation. Thymic enlargement suggests some perturbation of innate or adaptive immune responses wherein infection deserves special attention (22, 23).
New tools for investigation of SIDS such as the liquid biopsy, utilizing the science of proteomics to seek new molecular biomarkers may provide interesting results.
Conclusion
SIDS research appears to have lost its way because researchers appear to have forgotten or overlooked the epidemiological risk factors and clinical pathology because these are essential pointers to the underlying cause of SIDS/SUID. It is hoped that this article is seen as a constructive critique that highlights these neglected areas and provides encouragement for fresh thinking and therefore influence future SIDS research toward a more productive course and outcome. A recently published and easily tested novel hypothesis may provide new insights into the SIDS problem for it upholds all the epidemiological features of SIDS and is consistent with the clinicopathology of the syndrome (101).
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author Contributions
PG as the sole author, is responsible for all aspects of this paper (including conception, literature review, writing all drafts, and final version) and approved the article for publication and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome; SUID, sudden unexplained infant death; SUDI, sudden unexplained death in infancy; IFN, interferon; IL-6, interleukin-6; FDP, fibrin degradation products.
References
1. Beckwith J. Discussion of Terminology and Definition of the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Seattle: University of Washington Press (1970).
2. Willinger M, James LS, Catz C. Defining the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): deliberations of an expert panel convened by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatr Pathol. (1991) 11:677–84. doi: 10.3109/15513819109065465
3. Krous HF, Beckwith JB, Byard RW, Rognum TO, Bajanowski T, Corey T, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome and unclassified sudden infant deaths: a definitional and diagnostic approach. Pediatrics. (2004) 114:234–8. doi: 10.1542/peditors.114.1.234
4. Kahn A, Groswasser J, Franco P, Scaillet S, Sawaguchi T, Kelmanson I, et al. Sudden infant deaths: stress, arousal and SIDS. Early Human Develop. (2003) 75:147–66. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2003.08.018
5. Thach BT. The role of respiratory control disorders in SIDS. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. (2005) 149:343–53. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2005.06.011
6. Krous HF, Chadwick AE, Haas E, Masoumi H. Stanley C. Sudden infant death while awake. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. (2008) 4:40–6. doi: 10.1007/s12024-007-9003-y
7. Blair PS M Ward Platt IJ Smith PJ Fleming and the CESDI SUDI Research Group Sudden Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and the time of death: factors associated with night-time and day-time deaths. Int J Epidemiol. (2006) 35:1563–9. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyl212
8. Randall B, Donelan K, Koponen M, Sens MA, Krous HF. Application of a classification system focusing on potential asphyxia for cases of sudden unexpected infant death. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. (2012) 8:34–9. doi: 10.1007/s12024-011-9291-0
9. Garstang J., Ellis, C., Griffiths, F. Sidebotham P. Unintentional asphyxia, SIDS, and medically explained deaths: a descriptive study of outcomes of child death review (CDR) investigations following sudden unexpected death in infancy. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. (2016) 12:407–415. doi: 10.1007/s12024-016-9802-0
10. Byard RW. Possible mechanisms responsible for the sudden infant death syndrome. J Paediatr Child Health. (1991) 27:147–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.1991.tb00376.x
11. Sessa F, Esposito M, Messina G, Di Mizio G, Di Nunno N, Salerno M. Sudden death in adults: a practical flow chart for pathologist guidance. Healthcare. (2021) 9:870. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9070870
13. Siebert JR, Haas JE. Organ weights in sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatric Pathol. (1994) 14:973–85. doi: 10.3109/15513819409037694
14. Evetts AM, Shkrum MJ, Tugaleva E. A new reference source for post mortem body measurements and organ weights in neonates and infants: a statistical analysis based on sudden death classification (part 2). Am J Forensic Med Pathol. (2018) 39:285–303. doi: 10.1097/PAF.0000000000000401
15. Kadhim H, Sebire G, Khalifa M, Evrard P, Groswasser J, Franco P, et al. Incongruent cerebral growth in sudden infant death syndrome. J Child Neurol. (2005) 20:244–6. doi: 10.1177/088307380502000303
16. Sidebotham P, Fleming P. Unexpected Death in Childhood: A Handbook for Practitioners. London: Wiley (2008).
17. Aranda FJ, Teixeira F, Becker LE. Assessment of growth in sudden infant death syndrome. Neuroepidemiology. (1990) 9:95–105. doi: 10.1159/000110756
18. Shaw CM, Siebert JR, Haas JE, Alvord EC. Megalencephaly in sudden infant death syndrome. J Child Neurol. (1989) 4:39–42. doi: 10.1177/088307388900400106
19. Falck G. Rajs J.Brain weight and sudden infant death syndrome. J Child Neurol. (1995) 10:123–6. doi: 10.1177/088307389501000212
20. Little BB, Kemp PM, Bost RO, Snell LM, Peterman MA. Abnormal allometric size of vital body organs among sudden infant death syndrome victims. Am J Human Biol. (2000) 12:382–7. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200005/06)12:3<382::AID-AJHB8>3.0.CO;2-A
21. Kelmanson IA. Differences in somatic and organ growth rates in infants who died of sudden infant death syndrome. J Perinat Med. (1992) 20:183–8. doi: 10.1515/jpme.1992.20.3.183
22. Thompson WS, Cohle SD. Fifteen-year retrospective study of infant organ weights and revision of standard weight tables. J Forensic Sci. (2004) 49:575–85. doi: 10.1520/JFS2003288
23. Goldwater PN, Kelmanson IA, Little BB. Increased thymus weight in sudden infant death syndrome compared to controls: the role of sub-clinical infections. Am J Hum Biol. (2020) 33:e23528. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.23528
24. Stanton AN. Sudden infant death. Overheating and cot death. Lancet. (1984) 2:1199–201. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(84)92753-3
25. Lundemose JB, Smith H, Sweet C. Cytokine release from human peripheral blood leucocytes incubated with endotoxin with and without prior infection with influenza virus: relevance to the sudden infant death syndrome. Int J Exp Path. (1993) 74:291–7.
26. Vege Å, Rognum T, Scott H, Aasen A, Saugstad O. SIDS cases have increased levels of interleukin-6 in cerebrospinal fluid. Acta Paediatr. (1995) 84:193–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1995.tb13608.x
27. Raza MW, Blackwell CC. Sudden infant death syndrome, virus infections and cytokines. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. (1999) 25:85-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1999.tb01330.x
28. Blackwell CC, Weir DM. The role of infection in Sudden infant death syndrome. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. (1999) 25:1–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1999.tb01320.x
29. Ferrante L, Opdal SH, Vege A, Rognum TO. TNF-α promoter polymorphisms in sudden infant death. Hum Immunol. (2008) 69:368–73. doi: 10.1016/j.humimm.2008.04.006
30. Moscovis SM, Gordon AE, Al Madani OM, Gleeson M, Scott RJ, Hall ST, et al. Genetic and environmental factors affecting TNF-α responses in relation to sudden infant death syndrome. Front Immunol. (2015) 6:374. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00374
31. Vege A, Chen Y, Opdal SH, Saugstad OD, Rognum TO. Vitreous humor hypoxanthine levels in SIDS and infectious death. Acta Paediatr. (1994) 83:634–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1994.tb13096.x
32. Goldwater PN, Williams V, Bourne AJ, Byard RW. Sudden infant death syndrome: a possible clue to causation. Med J Aust. (1990) 153:59–60. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1990.tb125473.x
33. Burch JB, Reif JS, Yost MG. Geomagnetic disturbances are associated with reduced nocturnal excretion of melatonin metabolite in humans. Neurosci Lett. (1999) 266:209–12. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3940(99)00308-0
34. Davis RB, Meeker WK, Bailey WL. Serotonin release by bacterial Endotoxin. Exp Biol Med. (1961) 108:774–6. doi: 10.3181/00379727-108-27063
35. Rambaud C, Guibert M, Briand E, Grangeot-Keros L. Coulomb-L'Hermine A, Dehan M. Microbiology in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and other childhood deaths. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. (1999) 25:59–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1999.tb01327.x
36. Kariks J. Is shock the mode of death in SIDS? Med Hypotheses. (1985) 18:331–49. doi: 10.1016/0306-9877(85)90102-1
37. Kariks J, Diaphragmatic muscle fibre necrosis in SIDS. Forensic Sci Int. (1989) 43:281–91. doi: 10.1016/0379-0738(89)90156-4
39. Machaalani R, Waters KA. Neuronal cell death in the sudden infant death syndrome brainstem and associations with risk factors. Brain. (2008) 131:218–28. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm290
40. Ambrose N, Rodriguez M, Waters KA, Machaalani R. Microglia in the human infant brain and factors that affect expression. Brain Behav Immunity Health. (2020) 7:100117. doi: 10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100117
41. McKendrick N, Drucker DB, Morris JA, Telford DR, Barson AJ, Oppenheim BA, et al. Bacterial toxins: a possible cause of cot death. J Clin Pathol. (1992) 45:49–53. doi: 10.1136/jcp.45.1.49
42. Morris JA. Common bacterial toxins hypothesis of sudden infant death syndrome. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. (1999) 25:11–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1999.tb01322.x
43. Weber MA, Klein NJ, Hartley JC, Lock PE, Malone M, Sebire NJ. Infection and sudden unexpected death in infancy: a systematic retrospective case review. Lancet. (2008) 371:1848–53. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60798-9
44. Goldwater PN. Sterile site infection at autopsy in sudden unexpected deaths in infancy. Arch Dis Child. (2009) 94:303–7. doi: 10.1136/adc.2007.135939
45. Goldwater PN. Infection: the neglected paradigm in SIDS Research. Arch Dis Child. (2017) 102:767–72. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312327
46. Goldwater PN. SIDS, prone sleep position and infection: An overlooked epidemiological link in current SIDS research? Key evidence for the “Infection Hypothesis”. Med Hypotheses. (2020) 144:110114. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110114
48. Harrison LM, Morris JA, Telford DR, Brown SM, Jones K. The nasopharyngeal bacterial flora in infancy: effects of age, gender, season, viral upper respiratory tract infection and sleeping position. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. (1999) 25:19–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1999.tb01323.x
49. Blackwell CC, Gordon AE, James VS, MacKenzie DAC, Mogensen-Buchanan M, El Ahmer OR, et al. The role of bacterial toxins in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Int J Med Microbiol. (2002) 291:561–70. doi: 10.1078/1438-4221-00168
50. Duncan JR, Paterson DS, Hoffman JM. High serum serotonin in sudden infant death syndrome. PNAS. (2017) 14:7695–700. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617374114
51. Duncan JR, Paterson DS, Hoffman JM, Mokler DJ, Borenstein NS, Belliveau RA, et al. Brainstem serotonergic deficiency in sudden infant death syndrome. JAMA. (2010) 303:430–37. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.45
52. Poets CF, Samuels MP, Noyes JP, Hartmann H, Holder A, Southall D, et al. Home event recordings of oxygenation, breathing movements and electrocardiogram in infants and young children with recurrent apparent life-threatening events. J Pediatr. (1993) 123:693–701. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(05)80842-X
53. Bergman AB. Synthesis. In: Bergman AB, Beckwith JB, Ray CG, editors. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press (1970). p. 210–1.
54. Wedgwood RJ. Review of USA experience. In: Camps FE, Carpenter RG, editors. Sudden and Unexpected Death in Infancy (Cot Deaths). Bristol, England: Wright (1972). p. 28.
55. Raring RH. Crib Death: Scourge of Infants—Shame of Society. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press (1975). p. 93:97.
56. Filiano JJ, Kinney HC A. perspective on neuropathologic findings in victims of the sudden infant death syndrome: the triple-risk model. Biol Neonate. (1994) 65:194–7. doi: 10.1159/000244052
57. Guntheroth WG, Spiers PS. The triple risk hypothesis in sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatrics. (2002) 110:64. doi: 10.1542/peditors.110.5.e64
58. Spinelli J, Collins-Praino L, Van Den Heuvel C, Byard RW. Evolution and significance of the triple risk model in sudden infant death syndrome. J Paediatr Child Health. (2017) 53:112–5. doi: 10.1111/jpc.13429
59. Kinney HC. Brainstem mechanisms underlying the sudden infant death syndrome: Evidence from human pathologic studies. Dev Psychobiol. (2009) 51:223–33. doi: 10.1002/dev.20367
60. Kinney HC, Richerson GB, Dymecki SM, Darnall RA, Nattie EE. The brainstem and serotonin in the sudden infant death syndrome. Annu Rev Pathol. (2009) 4:517–50. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pathol.4.110807.092322
62. Bentele KHP, Albani M. Are there tests predictive for prolonged apnoea and SIDS?: A review of epidemiological and functional studies. Acta Paeiatr. (1988) 77:1–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1988.tb10792.x
64. O'Reilly MJJ, Whiley MK. Cot deaths in Brisbane, 1962 to 1966. Med J Aust. (1967) 2:1084–7. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1967.tb27296.x
65. Anonymous. Respiratory infection and sudden infant death. Lancet. (1989) 334:1191–2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)91797-2
66. Prandota J. Possible pathomechanisms of sudden infant death syndrome key role of chronic hypoxia, infection/inflammation states, cytokine irregularities, and metabolic trauma in genetically predisposed infants. Am J Ther. (2004) 11:517–46. doi: 10.1097/01.mjt.0000140648.30948.bd
67. Krous HF, Nadeau JM, Silva PD, Blackbourne B. A comparison of respiratory symptoms and inflammation in sudden infant death syndrome and in accidental or inflicted infant death. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. (2003) 24:1–8. doi: 10.1097/01.PAF.0000051520.92087.C3
68. Bajanowski T, Rolf B, Jorch G, Brinkmann B. Detection of RNA viruses in sudden infant death (SID). Int J Legal Med. (2003) 117:237–40. doi: 10.1007/s00414-003-0367-6
69. Crombie DL, Cross KW, Fleming DM. Infant respiratory death rates mirror sudden infant deaths. BMJ. (1995) 310:1603. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6994.1603
70. Bonser RSA, Knight BH, West RR. Sudden infant death syndrome in Cardiff, Association with epidemic influenza and with temperature-1955-1974. Int J Epidemiol. (1978) 7:335–40. doi: 10.1093/ije/7.4.335
71. Zink P, Drescher J, Verhagen W, Flik J, Milbradt H. Serological evidence of recent influenza virus A (H3N2) infections in forensic cases of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Arch Virol. (1987) 93:223–32. doi: 10.1007/BF01310976
72. Gilbert RE, Fleming PJ, Azaz Y, Rudd PT. Signs of illness preceding sudden unexpected death in infants. BMJ. (1990) 300:1237–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6734.1237
73. Mage DT, Donner M. A Unifying theory for SIDS. Int J Pediatr. (2009) 2009:368270. doi: 10.1155/2009/368270
74. Leach CEA, Blair PS, Fleming PJ, Smith IJ, Ward Platt M, Berry PJ, et al. and the CESDI SUDI Research Group. Epidemiology of SIDS and explained sudden infant deaths. Pediatrics. (1999) 104:e43. doi: 10.1542/peditors.104.4.e43
75. Blair PS, Sidebotham P, Evason-Coombe C, Edmonds M, Heckstall-Smith E, Fleming P. Hazardous cosleeping environments and risk factors amenable to change: case-control study of SIDS in south west England. BMJ. (2009) 13:b3666. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3666
76. Tappin D, Brooke H, Ecob R, Gibson A. Used infant mattresses and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland: case-control study. BMJ. (2002) 325:1007. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7371.1007
77. Rechtman LR, Colvin JD, Blair PS. Moon RY. Sofas and infant mortality. Pediatrics. (2014) 134:e1293–300. doi: 10.1542/peditors.2014-1543
78. Daltveit AK, Irgens LM, Oyen N, Skjaerven R, Markestad T, Alm B, et al. Sociodemographic risk factors for sudden infant death syndrome: associations with other risk factors The Nordic Epidemiological SIDS Study. Acta Pædiatr. (1998) 87:284–90. doi: 10.1080/08035259850157336
79. Hoffman HJ, Damus K, Hillman L, Drongrad E. Risk factors for SIDS: results of the national institute of child health and human development SIDS cooperative epidemiological study. Ann NY Acad Sci. (1988) 533:13–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb37230.x
80. Alm B, Milerad J, Wennergren G, Skjærven R, Øyen N, Norvenius G, et al. on behalf of the Nordic Epidemiological SIDS Study A case-control study of smoking and sudden infant death syndrome in the Scandinavian countries, 1992 to 1995. Arch Dis Child. (1998) 78:329–34. doi: 10.1136/adc.78.4.329
81. Vennemann M, Bajanowski T, Butterfaß-Bahloul T, Sauerland C, Jorch G, Brinkmann B, et al. Do risk factors differ between explained sudden unexpected death in infancy and sudden infant death syndrome? Arch Dis Child. (2007) 92:133–6. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.101337
82. Blackwell CC, Weir DM, Busuttil A. Infectious agents, the inflammatory responses of infants and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Mol Med Today. (1995) 1:72–8. doi: 10.1016/S1357-4310(95)92343-8
83. Spencer N, Logan S. Sudden unexpected death in infancy and socioeconomic status: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. (2004) 58:366–73. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.011551
84. Ponsonby A-L, Dwyer T, Gibbons LE, Cochrane JA, Wang Y-G. Factors potentiating the risk of sudden infant death syndrome associated with the prone position. N Engl J Med. (1993) 329:377–82. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199308053290601
85. Helweg-Larsen K, Lundemose JB, Øyen N, Skjærven B, Alm G, Wennergren T, et al. Interactions of infectious symptoms and modifiable risk factors in sudden infant death syndrome. The Nordic epidemiological SIDS study. Acta Pædiatr. (1999) 88:521–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1999.tb00168.x
86. Daltveit AK, Irgens LM, Øyen N, Skjærven R, Markestad T, Wennergren G. Circadian variations in sudden infant death syndrome: associations with maternal smoking, sleeping position and infections. The Nordic Epidemiological SIDS. Study Acta Paediatr. (2003) 92:2007–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2003.tb02567.x
87. Sarawar SR, Blackman MA, Doherty PC. Superantigen shock in mice with an inapparent viral infection. J Infect Dis. (1994) 170:1189–94. doi: 10.1093/infdis/170.5.1189
88. Alfelali M, Khandaker G. Infectious causes of sudden infant death syndrome. Paediatr Respir Rev. (2014) 15:307–11. doi: 10.1016/j.prrv.2014.09.004
89. Blackwell C, Moscovis S, Hall S, Burns C. Scott RJ. Exploring the risk factors for sudden infant deaths and their role in inflammatory responses to infection. Front Immunol. (2015) 6:44. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00044
90. Blood-Siegfried J, Bowers MT, Lorimer M. Is shock a key element in the pathology of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)? Biol Res Nurs. (2009) 11:187–94. doi: 10.1177/1099800408324854
91. Highet AR, Goldwater PN. Staphylococcal enterotoxin genes are common in Staphylococcus aureus intestinal flora in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and live comparison infants. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. (2009) 57:151–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2009.00592.x
92. Bettelheim KA, Goldwater PN, Dwyer BW, Bourne AJ, Smith DL. Toxigenic Escherichia coli associated with sudden infant death syndrome. Scand J Infect Dis. (1990) 22:467–76. doi: 10.3109/00365549009027079
93. Murrell TGC, Ingham BG, Moss JR, Taylor WB A. hypothesis concerning Clostridium perfringens type A enterotoxin (CPE) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Med Hypotheses. (1987) 22:401–13. doi: 10.1016/0306-9877(87)90035-1
94. Kamaras J, Murrell WG. Intestinal epithelial damage in SIDS babies and its similarity to that caused by bacterial toxins in the rabbit. Pathology. (2001) 33:197–203. doi: 10.1080/00313020120038683
95. Beal SM, Baghurst P, Antoniou G. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in South Australia 1968–97. Part 2: The epidemiology of non-prone and noncovered SIDS infants. J Paediatr Child Health. (2000) 36:548–51. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1754.2000.00576.x
96. Douglas AS, Allan TM, Helms PJ. Seasonality and the sudden infant death syndrome during 1987-9 and 1991-3 in Australia and Britain. BMJ. (1996) 312:1381–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7043.1381a
97. Froggatt P, Lynas MA, MacKenzie G. Epidemiology of sudden unexpected death in infants (‘Cot death') in Northern Ireland. Brit J Prev Soc Med. (1971) 25:119–34. doi: 10.1136/jech.25.3.119
98. Wigfield RE, Fleming PJ, Berry PJ, Rudd PT, Golding J. Can the fall in Avon's sudden infant death rate be explained by changes in sleep position? BMJ. (1992) 304:282–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6822.282
99. Goldwater PN A. perspective on SIDS pathogenesis. The hypotheses: plausibility and evidence. BMC Med. (2011) 9:64. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-64
100. Mage DT. Do Infants Die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) With Long QT Syndrome (LQTS) or From LQTS? Pediatr Cardiol. (2012) 33:1472. doi: 10.1007/s00246-012-0460-z
Keywords: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, SIDS, Sudden Unexplained Infant Death, SUID, pathology, epidemiology, physiology
Citation: Goldwater PN (2022) The Science (or Nonscience) of Research Into Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Front. Pediatr. 10:865051. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.865051
Received: 29 January 2022; Accepted: 03 March 2022;
Published: 15 April 2022.
Edited by:
Robert Cohen, Independent Researcher, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, FranceReviewed by:
Cristoforo Pomara, University of Catania, ItalyCopyright © 2022 Goldwater. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Paul Nathan Goldwater, pgoldwater@gmail.com