Abstract
Various forms of early life adversity (ELA) have been linked with increased risk for negative health outcomes, including neuropsychiatric disorders. Understanding how the complex interplay between types, timing, duration, and severity of ELA, together with individual differences in genetic, socio-cultural, and physiological differences can mediate risk and resilience has proven difficult in population based studies. Use of animal models provides a powerful toolset to isolate key variables underlying risk for altered neural and behavioral maturational trajectories. However, a lack of clarity regarding the unique features of differing forms of adversity, lab differences in the implementation and reporting of methods, and the ability compare across labs and types of ELA has led to some confusion. Here, we highlight the diversity of approaches available, current challenges, and a possible ways forward to increase clarity and drive more meaningful and fruitful implementation and comparison of these approaches.