Background: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children-Generation 2 (ALSPAC-G2) was set up to provide a unique multi-generational cohort. It builds on the existing ALSPAC resource, which recruited 14,541 pregnancies to women resident in the South West of England who were expected to deliver between 01/04/1991 and 31/12/1992. Those women and their partners  and their offspring (ALSPAC-G1) have been followed for the last 27 years. This profile describes recruitment and data collection on the next generation (ALSPAC-G2)—the grandchildren of ALSPAC-G0 and children of ALSPAC-G1.Recruitment: Recruitment began on the 6th of June 2012 and we present details of recruitment and participants up to 30th June 2018 (~6 years). We knew at the start of recruitment that some ALSPAC-G1 participants had already become parents and ALSPAC-G2 is an open cohort; we recruit at any age. We hope to continue recruiting until all ALSPAC-G1 participants have completed their families. Up to 30th June 2018 we recruited 810 ALSPAC-G2 participants from 548 families. Of these 810, 389 (48%) were recruited during their mother’s pregnancy, 287 (35%) before age 3 years, 104 (13%) between 3-6 years and 30 (4%) after 6 years. Over 70% of those invited to early pregnancy, late pregnancy, second week of life, 6-, 12- and 24-month assessments  have attended, with attendance being over 60% for subsequent visits up to 7 years .Data collection: We collect a wide-range of socioeconomic, lifestyle, clinical, anthropometric and biological data on all family members repeatedly. Biological samples include blood (including cord-blood), urine, meconium and faeces, and placental tissue. In subgroups detailed data collection, such as continuous glucose monitoring and videos of parent-child interactions, are being collected. It builds on the existing ALSPAC resource which originally recruited 14,541 pregnancies to women who were resident in the former county of Avon (centred around the city of Bristol in the South West of England) and who were expected to deliver between 01/04/1991 and 31/12/1992. Those women and their partners (ALSPAC-G0), together with their index children (ALSPAC-G1), who are now in their late-20s, have been followed since pregnancy or birth, with full details provided in previous cohort profiles2. The ALSPAC resource, including ALSPAC-G2, receives core funding from the University of Bristol, Wellcome and UK Medical Research Council, with additional support from a very wide range of national and international funders . Since its inception in the early 1990s the study has been known by two names. ALSPAC, including ALSPAC-G2, is used in all academic publications, presentations and with research funders. To participants and in the media the original study  is known as Children of the 90s (Co90s) and ALSPAC-G2 is known as Children of the Children of the 90s .The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children-2It was envisaged that initially ALSPAC-G2 would contribute unique research in the following broad areas:Understanding how socioeconomic, lifestyle, patho-physiological, metabolic, genomic and epigenomic factors combine to influence the associations of health and wellbeing across generations. With the addition of ALSPAC-G2, ALSPAC is unique in being the only human study able to do this with relevant detailed data across three generations.3. For ALSPAC-G2 children, we have detailed repeatedly assessed preconceptual data for at least one of the parents . For the second parent who was not originally in ALSPAC but is recruited to ALSPAC-G1 as part of extending the resource to ALSPAC-G2 we will have pre-conceptual data from record linkage and for subsequent pregnancies/children (i.e. those recruited after the first child who is recruited to ALSPAC-G2) we will also have preconceptual data from our research clinic. No existing birth cohort has such extensive parental data, including on fathers, with many having little or no data on large proportions of fathers4.Determining the impact of pre-conceptual health and wellbeing of mothers and fathers on fertility and growth, development and health of their offspring. The importance of pre-conceptual cohort studies is increasingly recognised but they are difficult to establish, with many existing pre-conceptual cohorts recruited from fertility clinics rather than the general population as hereUnderstanding the impact of major changes that have occurred over the last 20–25 years and how these have influenced differences between ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1 in relation to whether, and when, to start a family, parenting patterns, and ‘work-family/outside of work’ balance and of these on differences in health and development of ALSPAC-G1 and ALSPAC-G2. These changes have been unprecedented and include changes in environmental , societal , political  technological  and lifestyle  factors. For example, ALSPAC-G0 participants mostly finished their education and started their careers before the internet was invented. In its current recognisable form, widespread availability of the internet began in 1990 just before ALSPAC-G1 were born but its reach into primary schools will have been limited for this generation. In contrast, ALSPAC-G2 are likely to spend their whole lives extensively using the internet for their education, work and social life.Providing an opportunity to explore factors associated with, and outcomes of, starting a family at a relatively young or relatively older age in comparison to the most common age range for the generation that ALSPAC-G1 reflect. Understanding how differences in parental age at starting a family and the factors associated with that influence health and wellbeing in the generation that ALSAPC-G2 reflect. This will be facilitated by collecting data on all children of a well characterised cohort born at the same time (1991–92) in the same geographical area (South West of England) and hence removing confounding by period and location of birth.5.Exploiting the very detailed genetic and phenotypic data collected on parents and siblings to improve causal inference in research, by triangulating results using different methodological approaches, such as Mendelian randomization, parental negative control studies and within sibship analyses Providing a platform for pilot and feasibility studies of novel technologies for data collection, such as the use of non-intrusive wearables (e.g. biosensors and smart watches) for continually monitoring physiology and behaviours.7. If we continue to be funded beyond 2024 (i.e. the end of the current core funded period), and engage participants, the study will contribute translational research to all areas with unique data on families where data on at least one parent will be known from when they were in utero to when they completed their family. We describe varying sources of bias over this time of recruitment in the section on “What are the main strengths and limitations”.As ALSPAC-G2 participants will take another ~20 years to recruit, the extent to which each of these research areas can be addressed will vary over time. It will also depend on funding availability and continued participant engagement. Considering the ‘short-term’ to refer to research that is, or could be, done currently, medium-term what will be completed in the next 5 to to 10 years and longer-term what will be mostly done in the next 10–20+ years, ALSPAC-G2 has already contributed to the first area of research listed above (see section “What has ALSPAC-G2 found? Key findings and publications”) and, with continued funding secured for a further 5 years, will continue to contribute to this area in the medium-term. Similarly, ALSPAC-G2 will contribute to research areas 2, 3 and 6 in the short- and medium-term. Area 4 is not possible until the ALSPAC-G1 participants who choose to become parents have completed their families and is therefore a long-term ambition. Some of the causal analyses listed in area 5 require large sample sizes for precise estimation. For continuously measured outcomes ALSPAC-G2 will be able to contribute to within sibship and parental negative control studies within the next 5 years (i.e. in the recently awarded funding period) ALSPAC-G2 will be able to contribute to genome-wide and Mendelian randomization analyses, including family based Mendelian randomization through participation in large collaborations, such as the Early Growth Genetics (EGG) consortia, which already includes cohorts with fewer participants than currently in ALSPAC-G2th June 2012. Our aim is to recruit all children of ALSPAC-G1 participants into ALSPAC-G2. As well as recruiting the next generation of children, we also recruit the (non-ALSPAC) partners of their ALSPAC-G1 parent and collect data from them (in utero to the time of them becoming pregnant/a parent (with this being the case for both parents for 9% of ALSPAC-G2). We also have newly collected information from questionnaires, clinic assessments, record linkage and blood samples , from both parents, including any parent who was not an original ALSPAC-G1 participant, but is recruited to be part of ALSPAC-G1 as we recruit their ALSPAC-G2 child.We began recruitment to ALSPAC-G2 on the 6om them . Of the We recruit ALSPAC-G2 participants through multiple means: via questionnaires to all ALSPAC-G0 and -G1 participants, in which we ask about becoming pregnant or a parent (ALSPAC-G1) or a grandparent (ALSPAC-G0); asking similar questions when any ALSPAC-G0 or -G1 participant attends a research clinic visit; and through posters in primary care clinics and maternity units in the South West of England. We also use our regular mailed and emailed newsletters and conventional  and social  media to remind ALSPAC-G0 and -G1 participants about ALSPAC-G2. When we hear about an ALSPAC-G1 participant becoming pregnant or a parent from one of their parents (ALSPAC-G0) we ask that their parent mention ALSPAC-G2 to them and ask them to contact us if they are interested in hearing more about the study . Similarly, when ALSPAC-G1 participants contact us because of hearing about the study via our newsletter or other media, we ask if they would like an information pack. Parents of ALSPAC-G2 participants can be resident anywhere, though the vast majority remain in the UK; we offer travel costs to clinic visits in Bristol. Biological samples at birth  are currently collected on participants delivering at one of nine maternity units in and around the South West of England.Ethics. Ethical approval for ALSPAC was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the UK National Health Service Research Ethics Committee . Participants (the main care-giver for children) provided written informed consent for data collection and its use in research.Response and characteristics of eligible participants who are and are not recruited. For all analyses in this profile we have restricted the sample to children of any ALSPAC-G1 pregnant/parent participant who agreed to be sent an invitation pack and for whom we had a correct address  and the most recent year (1st July 2017 to 30th June 2018)  of these, with 596 (56% of those invited) agreeing to participate. By 30amilies . Of these 2018) . As mighe 2018) .8. For each variable with missing data, 100 imputed variables were created. Linear regression was used to impute continuous variables, logistic for binary, and multinomial logistic for multi-category variables8. Differences (differences in means or odds ratios) between characteristics were estimated in each of the 100 imputed datasets and then pooled using Rubin’s rules8. The results based on observed and imputed data were similar  than those who declined or did not respond, but were similar in terms of sex, educational attainment, smoking and whether they lived in the Bristol area at the time of recruitment . Howeversimilar .From the start of the study, we established ALSPAC-G2 as an open cohort: open both in terms of when someone might enter the study  and the length of time we aim to keep recruitment open for ALSPAC-G2 (and subsequent generations). We currently have protocols for data collection (on both parents (ALSPAC-G1) and their offspring (ALSPAC-G2)) for early pregnancy (up to 20 completed weeks of gestation), late pregnancy (≥28 weeks gestation), first 7–15 days, 6-months, 12 months, annually up to 7 years and then at 9 and 11 years . Our curnd pregnancy at the same time as the next assessment due for the first child. That is, we would do the 36-month assessment for the first child a little earlier than had their mother not been pregnant with a second child to minimise participant burden. The family would subsequently be eligible for annual child assessments of the older child and birth, 6-months and then annual child assessments of the younger child. We would plan all subsequent visits so that the family would only need to attend once for each of these subsequent assessments of both children. At all assessments we would complete relevant parental and children assessments and within the study database record this. For example, at the assessments where the mother is pregnant with a second child and also due to have a ~36-month postnatal assessment in relation to their first child, results would be linked to both children and we would do all 36-month measurements (that were feasible in a pregnant woman), as well as all pregnancy measurements. For the 36-month postnatal measurements we would indicate that the woman was pregnant with another child.Participants are invited to all subsequent assessments after the first one that they attend. Both at recruitment and follow-up we are flexible about which assessment age they ‘slot’ into in order to maximise response and minimise participant burden, particularly when ALSPAC-G1 parents have more than one ALSPAC-G2 child. For example, an ALSPAC-G1 woman who was recruited when 21 weeks pregnant with a second child and who already had a 31-month-old child in ALSPAC-G2, would have the pregnancy assessment for their 2We have found that we see many ALSPAC-G1 pregnant women between the thresholds that we initially used to defined early and late pregnancy (i.e. between 20 and 28 weeks of gestation). This is because once women contact us to join the study they are keen to make an appointment as soon as possible at a date that suits them, and also because of combining assessments when parents have more than one ALSPAC-G2 child (see example description above). We therefore plan to change to having a protocol for recruitment at any gestational age in pregnancy and to see women just once during pregnancy.in utero early in their mother’s pregnancy to late childhood, follow-up rates can be difficult to describe. This is because at each of the ALSPAC-G2 assessment ages eligible participants include any fetus/infant/child who is being recruited and seen for the first time at that age as well as those who were recruited at any of the earlier assessment times who have reached the age of the assessment under consideration. We summarise this inIn an open cohort like ALSPAC-G2 in which participants may be initially recruited at different ages from when they areREDCap software for direct data entry at the point of collection.Extended Data, Summary of data collection)9.We use10, videos of parent-child interactions from head-worn and home-based cameras11, and dietary intake from smart-phone photographs of meals12.We collect a range of environmental, socioeconomic, lifestyle, clinical and biological data on all family members repeatedly . BiologiExtended Data, Child PIS)9.We have had active participant groups in ALSPAC since it began. These groups suggest areas of data collection and provide advice on planned data collection, including methods for collecting these data. In addition, we receive direct advice and suggestions as we collect data (questionnaires or clinic assessments). For ALSPAC-G2, this has included help with collecting and appropriately labelling data for same-sex couples and suggesting that we collect data on baby-led weaning and helping us to develop appropriate questions about this. From age 9 years we involve the ALSPAC-G2 children directly via a participant information sheet that they (and their parents) helped us to design , with these findings remaining unchanged in numerous sensitivity analyses, including when restricting analyses to 66 mother-offspring pairs13. When individual symptoms were examined, the contemporary generation reported notably higher levels of feeling overwhelmed, crying often and having difficulty sleeping. Offspring of mothers who experienced high levels of antenatal depressive symptoms were over three times more likely to also experience high levels of symptoms13.We have undertaken additional preliminary cross-generational analyses of pregnancy and perinatal outcomes for this cohort-profile. In these analyses we only included ALSPAC-G0 women who were aged 19–26 at the birth of their ALSPAC-G1 child, as over 95% of the ALSPAC-G1 women were within this age range when pregnant with their ALSPAC-G2 child. In both generations we only included the first pregnancy recruited to the study. For these preliminary analyses we have only adjusted for maternal age (in years) and we used robust standard errors because of non-independence between the 197 mother-daughter (ALSPAC-G0-ALSPAC-G1) pairs across the two groups.8.We imputed missing data in two ways; one in which both generations ALSPAC-G0/G1 and -G1/G2 were combined (treated as one cohort) and then imputation was carried out and one in which imputation was carried out separately in each generation and then imputed datasets were combined before the main analyses were undertaken. The former assumes there are no interactions in associations between the two generations, whereas the latter allows for this. In both approaches we used chained equations to predict missing data and for each variable with missing data 100 imputed variables were created (i.e. 100 imputed datasets were generated). Linear regression was used to impute continuous variables, logistic for binary, and multinomial logistic for multi-category variablesa priori selected predictors of missing data were included in the imputation models: whether ALSPAC-G0 or ALSPAC-G1 ever smoked (outside of pregnancy), the ALSPAC-G0’s and ALSPAC-G1’s mother’s educational attainment , the ALSPAC-G0’s and ALSPAC-G1’s mother’s occupational social class , and whether both the ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1 participants were residing in a home with a Bristol (BS) postcode at the time of recruitment . The imputation model in both of the separate (ALSPAC-G0/G1 and ALSPAC-G1/G2) generation analyses included all variables used in any of the cross-cohort association analyses specific to that generation listed inThe imputation model in the combined imputation analyses included all variables used in any of the cross-cohort association analyses shown in the final column of14. Differences (differences in means or odds ratios) between generations were estimated in each of the 100 imputed datasets and then pooled using Rubin’s rules8.In all imputation models we used an augmented regression approach with small weights to prevent perfect prediction for whether ALSPAC-G0 or -G1 ever smoked (outside of pregnancy), as someone who never smoked could not have smoked in pregnancy. This augmented regression approach was also required in the combined imputation model to prevent perfect prediction between Bristol postcode and cohort . This augmented regression approach was necessary as it is not possible to estimate parameters for perfectly predictive variables, and therefore imputation based on these variables is subsequently not possibleThese preliminary analyses suggest that the current generation of pregnant women (ALSPAC-G1 mothers with their G2 child) are slightly younger, have a higher body mass index and total cholesterol. They also have markedly higher odds of completing education to at least advanced (A)-level secondary school qualifications and markedly lower odds of smoking during pregnancy than their mother’s generation . Their . We do nPilot data collection of physical activity and diet. We piloted the use of a custom made wrist-worn device, which includes a triaxial accelerometer sensor, low-power radio, battery and non-volatile memory module, on 97 mothers15. The motivation was to be able to collect very detailed activity data over extended periods of time with as little inconvenience to the participants as possible. The device stores accelerometer data in non-volatile memory allowing for those data to be retrieved (some time later) over a low-power wireless link. It uses a novel, low power, lossless data compression algorithm to minimise the amount of data transmitted over the radio link, whilst retaining all information captured by the accelerometer. This, combined with the low-power radio, makes it possible to collect very detailed activity data whilst minimising overall device power consumption, reducing the burden of having to keep the device charged15. However, the pilot study found that participants were unlikely to wear this device because its large size meant that they found it less ‘attractive’ than modern smart watches. We are now collecting pregnancy physical activity levels using the Axivity AX3 wrist-worn triaxial accelerometer with a considerably greater uptake than the custom made accelerometer (84% versus 50%), resulting in those who provided valid data being greater for the Axivity AX3 accelerometer (254 (79%) of the 322 eligible) compared with the custom-made system (263 (46%) of the 576 eligible).12. The Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) collects dietary data using the SmartIntake phone application16. Pregnant ALSPAC-G1 participants (carrying an ALSPAC-G2 fetus) were asked to record 6 days of eating/drinking occasions with this smartphone application. Real-time monitoring and feedback occurred for the first day. This required them to take a photograph before and after each eating/drinking occasion and provide a brief text description of items that are not visible in photos (e.g. butter inside sandwiches). A total of 182 mothers who were recruited at any assessment point during pregnancy were invited to use RFPM and/or an online food diary or recall to collect dietary data for 6 consecutive days. A greater proportion of women agreed to use the online method compared with RFPM (53% vs 22%). However, of those agreeing to use RFPM, more provided data for 4 days or more than those agreeing to complete the online diary or recall assessments (58% vs 29%). Of those using the RFPM, most found installation and set-up (95%), taking photos of meals (70%) and receiving reminders (81%) easy or very easy12.We are one of the first studies to explore the feasibility of using a smartphone food-photography application to assess dietary intake in a general population of young pregnant women17. In further analyses, we found that compared with expert dietician review, crowds varying in size from 5 to 50 people identified food groups in the photos with high specificity (mean 98%) but modest sensitivity (68%) i.e. crowds almost always identified foods in the photo correctly but some foods in photos were missed out, explaining the average underestimation of total meal weight by crowds (unpublished findings).As the use of expert analysis of food photos is extremely research-resource-intensive, we also completed pilot work comparing portion size and food groups identified by expert analysis with crowd-sourced data (using photographs from non-ALSPAC volunteers). We used 30 photographs of meals. For each of these photos total meal weight was measured using an Mandometer® device  and food groups displayed were reviewed by an expert dietitian. In comparison to the measured weight, crowds underestimated meal weight by an average of 63 g (95% level of agreement -299 to 174 g), whereas the dietitian overestimated by 28 g (95% level of agreement -158 to 214 g)Using continuous glucose monitors in unselected prenatal/postnatal women. We have completed a pilot study of the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) in healthy women during pregnancy and postnatally. Women were invited to wear a Medtronic iPro2 CGM on their buttock, abdomen or arm, for 6-days, at up to four time points: in early pregnancy (≤20 weeks gestation), late pregnancy (>28 weeks), and at 6 and 12 months postnatally. A total of 63 women provided 96 CGM assessment (25% response)10. While wearing the device, participants were asked to measure their capillary blood glucose by finger prick 4 times daily to calibrate the system and to record mealtimes in a meal diary. Feedback from participants suggests that the requirement to repeatedly test capillary glucose with a finger prick was a disincentive to using this system and in Summer 2019 we started using a different system that does not require calibration using capillary blood from finger pricks.18. We have developed an open-source software package (GLU) for deriving a consistent set of summary variables from CGM data10. GLU performs quality control of each CGM sample (e.g. addressing missing data), derives a diverse set of summary variables covering six broad domains, and outputs these measures to the user. We have used GLU with the ALSPAC-G2 pilot data and shown that overall mean glucose levels were very similar (~5 mmol/l) across the four time points, but that this similarity conceals very different patterns of variation, with greater variability during pregnancy (both early and late) than postnatally and more time spent hypoglycaemic during pregnancy than postnatally. Fasting glucose was, on average, higher 12 months postnatally compared with early pregnancy10. We also found that, during pregnancy, higher BMI was associated with higher overall mean glucose levels during both the day and night, higher time spent in hyper-glycaemia during the night and shorter post-prandial time to peak glucose10.We used CGMs to record interstitial glucose ‘continuously’, producing a sequence of measurements for each participant . To analyse these data, researchers tend to derive summary variables such as time spent above or below specific levels. To date, a lack of consistency and transparency of precise definitions used for these descriptive characteristics has hindered interpretation, replication and comparison of results across studiesMain strengths. ALSPAC-G2 makes the whole ALSPAC resource a unique intergenerational scientific resource for researchers globally. Recruiting ALSPAC-G2 provides a pre-conception cohort with very detailed information on at least one parent from when they werein utero. For the parent who was not a member of the original ALSPAC-G1 cohort, extension of our record linkage to primary and secondary health care, and school-based educational assessments, will provide some pre-conceptual data, and for those with a subsequent child there will be pre-conceptual data on the second and subsequent children. ALSPAC-G2 also has more data on fathers than in most pregnancy/birth cohorts. Once all of the next generation have been born, we will hopefully have a cohort that includes multiple sibling groups and other extended family relationships that can be exploited to improve causal inference5, as well as understanding how family relationships impact health and wellbeing. We will also have a cohort  on whom we have prospective data that can be used to describe subgroups of those who choose to start a family at a relatively young age, compared with those who start their family at older ages, those who choose to remain childless and those who are childless but not through choice. It will be possible to explore factors related to these choices and how they relate to future health and wellbeing of the parents/adults (G1) and their children (G2). No other study that we are aware of will have such prospective data.http://www.bris.ac.uk/dental/cleft-collective/professionals/), and newly planned Bristol IVF  and congenital heart disease cohorts (currently funded with recruitment to start soon but no reference or website available). We have demonstrated the value of ALSPAC-G2 for piloting and testing the feasibility of novel data collection methods and work closely with other international birth cohorts to share best practice, protocols and replicate, and where appropriate pool data.An additional strength is that we will use ALSPAC-G2 participants as a control cohort for local and national clinical cohorts, including the on-going national cleft lip and palate cohort 19.Other key limitations fall into one of three areas: sources of selection bias; the representativeness of each generation to a target population; and limitations related to different data collection approaches and change in these over time. These are discussed in detail below.Selection bias. There are a number of sources of potential selection bias in ALSPAC-G220. Some of these, such as incomplete recruitment and loss to follow-up, are common to most prospective cohort studies, whereas others, such as the current recruitment at a relatively young age and the focus of analyses in cross-generational effects, are more specific to ALSPAC-G2. Below we describe some of the key potential sources of selection bias, general methods that might be used to mitigate against some of the selection mechanisms, and data and analytical approaches that could be used to explore and control for potential selection bias. It is important to note that appropriate methods for exploring and controlling for selection bias are specific to the research question and the analyses being used to address that question. Furthermore, ALSPAC is a resource for the global scientific community to use and we do not dictate how scientists using this resource complete their analyses. Whilst we make suggestions here that might be used to explore selection bias, researchers must decide how they want to approach this for the specific questions they are exploring with these data.2.Our response is 56% of those invited  and respondents are more likely to be those already engaged with ALSPAC as indicated by being more likely to have participated in the two most recent clinic assessments for all ALSPAC-G1 participants. Once recruited a high proportion remain actively engaged with follow-up, though the extent to which this will continue as the cohort ages is unknown. Currently, ALSPAC-G2 are children being born to relatively young parents (mean 22 years (range 17–26)); though the age range of parents will increase with continued follow-up. Whilst cross-generational comparisons that have already been published and/or presented in this paper are age matched, it is possible that the factors that influence starting a family at a relatively young age differ across generations. If these factors are unknown or unmeasured (and therefore cannot be controlled for) there may be bias in the cross generational comparisons. This may be further complicated by secular trends in some of these factors. For example, preliminary analyses presented here suggest that age matched ALSPAC-G1 mothers with an ALSPAC-G2 child are more educated than were their ALSPAC-G0 mother’s generation when recruited during their pregnancy ~30years ago. This difference may be due to true differences between UK pregnant women across generations. For example, there may have been a reduction in the stigma attached to becoming pregnant at a young age and hence a reduction in the association of education/socioeconomic position with it. ALSPAC-G1 mothers may also be truly more educated than their parent’s generation as a result of changes in education policy and secular trends related to that policy. Over the last 20–30 years there has been a doubling of the proportion of people obtaining a University degree in the UK, stimulated by policy changes, including previous further education establishments becoming Universities in the 1990s. Alternatively these cross-generational differences in education could be due to selection bias. This is supported by our finding that those ALSPAC-G1 parents recruited as pregnant women or parents to ALSPAC-G2 are more engaged with the study than those not recruited , and thaAt the time we began recruitment, ALSPAC-G1 participants were aged 19–21 years and some had already become parents. Thus, whilst the cohort is currently of relatively young parents, we do not have detailed pregnancy data on those who became pregnant before 19-years. To maximise participation of all ALSPAC-G2 we will continue to recruit participants at different ages. For those ALSPAC-G2 participants recruited after birth, either because they were born prior to when we began recruitment or because their parents only decided to join ALSPAC-G2 when their child/children were older, their mother’s pregnancy information and their birth/infancy information will be limited to what we can obtain from record linkage. With the extensive linkage that is now possible, including primary-, secondary- and community health care, education and environmental linkage we will still have a lot of information on these pregnancies and the resulting infants. Furthermore, the proportion recruited in pregnancy has increased over time and once a family have joined ALSPAC-G2, subsequent children are mostly recruited during their mother’s pregnancy.To mitigate against some of these sources of bias we aim to minimise participant burden by using record linkage and remote data collection as much as possible. The ability to do this is supported by the existence of a National Health Service in the UK and large-scale initiatives across UK research funders for supporting ethical and appropriate access to anonymised health, environmental, and socioeconomic data. Linked data can also be used for describing the likely nature of any selection bias and informing sensitivity analyses.20. In this section we describe some of these approaches in general terms, as it is important to note that which methods are most appropriate to use will depend on the specific research questions being addressed and the likely source of selection bias22. Furthermore, ALSPAC data are available for scientists across the world to use. Whilst we highlight potential sources of selection bias in this cohort profile and will do so through conference presentations and the study website, we cannot dictate how other scientists approach these issues when using the study data. We will encourage others to explore issues of selection bias when using ALSPAC-G2 data and make details of their methods open access (including via linked Wellcome Open Research publications).Both existing research and record linkage data, including on grandparents and parents (ALSPAC-G0 and -G1), can be used to explore potential selection bias from any of the sources described above, and to inform sensitivity analyses to explore the extent of bias that might occur for any given analyses21 useful to illustrate specific sources of selection bias and their assumptions of any methods used to explore and control for these (see for example referenceshttps://strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home) require authors to describe the extent of missing data and how potential bias from that has been explored and we strongly encourage users of ALSPAC to adhere to those reporting guidelines. Such reporting guidelines do not recommend specific approaches, e.g. for dealing with missing data, just that there is clarity about the issue. A common approach to dealing with missing data is complete case analyses . In general, this is expected to be unbiased if missingness is not related to the outcome in the main analysis model conditioned on exposure and all covariables included in the main analyses23. Other commonly used methods for exploring and mitigating against selection bias include multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting, both of which assume that data are missing at random . When analysing repeat measurements, e.g. trajectories of change in BMI or cognitive function, all participants with at least one value (of the variable that has been assessed repeatedly) can be included in the main analyses under a MAR assumption. Ideally, one would want to use more than one method, with differing assumptions, for exploring selection bias (bias due to missing data). In the preliminary cross-generational analyses presented here we compared results from complete case analyses to those using multiple imputation (including using two different approaches to the latter) and found similar results across all three approaches which increases confidence in these not being biased.In our work we have found directed acyclic graphs25. Similar linkage for ALSPAC-G2 and the new (to ALSPAC) partners of existing ALSPAC-G1 is on-going and will be regularly updated. These data can be informative for methods assuming data are MAR  and will include some repeat collections of data obtained using the same methods across time. Such data are also likely to be obtained more extensively  and more precisely . However, specific research data may have more missingness due to loss to follow-up or some measures not being completed by some participants. Linked data is often available on all (or a large proportion) of participants. All generations of ALSPAC have both repeatedly assessed research and record linked data on many variables see, which cMAR e.g. and also24, and others,  had similar socioeconomic characteristics and ethnic backgrounds to those of the population of the former county of Avon (South West region of England)2. They were more affluent and more likely to be White European than the whole of the UK in the early 1990s, which reflects the difference between the population in the South West of England where the ALSAPC resource is based and the rest of the UK2. At age 16-years their children (ALSPAC-G1 – i.e. the parents of ALSPAC-G2) had somewhat higher school test scores than the national average, with this difference increasing in sub-samples based on increasing loss to follow-up1. As recruitment of ALSPAC-G2 has been higher for those whose ALSPAC-G1 parents were most engaged with the study it is possible that over time ALSPAC-G2 will show greater differences to national averages. We will monitor that through the extensive record linkage, including data on education. Whilst selection bias and representativeness are sometimes treated as if they reflect the same concept, here we consider that lack of representativeness to the target population may bias estimates of prevalence but does not necessarily influence association or causal effect estimates. There have been considerable debates on this topic  metabolomics can be minimised by repeat normalisation across batches as assays are repeated in new cohort members and for chip based analyses for example, with epigenomic (DNA methylation) data adjusting for technical factors can minimise differences across batches. Furthermore, collaborative research shows considerable consistency across cohorts, despite MS metabolomic , or more contemporary tools that might be considered more valid and allow comparisons with other contemporary cohorts. Currently, we have mostly used similar tools to those used in the previous generation, but over the next 12–24 months we will undertake workshops with experts in relevant fields to explore whether there are some measures for which we should be using more contemporary tools.Differences across generations on characteristics obtained through record linkage may be influenced by changes in how disease outcomes are classified over time, changes in policy  and the methods used to obtain information in these data systems, which are primarily used for administrative or policy purposes rather than research. The data management systems in ALSPAC, together with national initiatives, will ensure we remain aware of such changes and we will provide guidance to users of the resource about their potential impact on ALSPAC data.39 and sensors for biomarkers10, to provide efficient (and accurate) data collection. The novel data sensors we are currently using are likely to be replaced by new systems in the future. We are committed to continue piloting novel data collection methods in ALSPAC-G2 and calibrate them against approaches that have previously been used in ALSPAC-G2 and -G0 and -G1. As an example, we have recently changed from a continuous glucose monitoring system that required participants to complete four finger prick tests of their capillary blood glucose per day, to one that does not have this requirement. We have directly compared these two systems in (non-ALSPAC) volunteers who wore both monitors at the same time to establish consistency in traces between them. We intend to learn from our increasing experience of harmonising data collected in many different ways across cohorts in several collaborations. With respect to birth cohorts , this is currently being undertaken for substantial amounts of data in the Horizon2020 funded LifeCycle collaboration (https://lifecycle-project.eu/), which will, together with other collaborative efforts, provide the foundations for continuing this with different data collection tools over coming years and decades in ALSPAC-G2.We anticipate that most ALSPAC-G2 participants will continue to be born up to the early 2040s . By the 2040s there will also be ALSPAC-G3 and -G4 participants. Continuing to recruit these participants and generations adds considerable value to the existing ALSPAC resource for the whole scientific community. It has the potential to uniquely address important research questions related to how development and adverse health outcomes are transmitted across generations and how we might intervene to maximise population health. However, it may be difficult to continue to obtain the necessary funds for continued recruitment of, and data collection from, multiple generations, and it may also be difficult to retain participant engagement over prolonged periods of time. To address this, we are pursuing more extensive record linkage and novel remote minimally intrusive data capture, such as via smart-watches40. A ‘learning effect’ will be unlikely for direct measurements such as weight, height and biosample assays. The ALSPAC-G2 participants are mostly born in the South West of England  and are mostly of White European origin. This has some advantages for exploring between generational differences, but we acknowledge replication of findings from ALSPAC-G2 with other more diverse cohorts will be important.The fact that this is a cohort in which at least one parent has been actively engaged with the study for over 20-years may mean that they have ‘learnt’ how to respond to some research questions, such as those related to mental health, or complete some assessments, such as cognitive function testsTo conclude, ALSPAC-G2 provides a unique resource for exploring how health and wellbeing are transmitted across generations. It is a complex study with multiple sources of potential selection bias. We (and hopefully other researchers) will use these data for applied research and also to develop valid methods for appropriately exploring and controlling for selection bias and for analysing the complex structure of these family data. This will enhance the value of ALSPAC-G2 and also be of considerable benefit to other family based cohorts, in particular those that are multi-generational.http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/data-access/documents/alspac-data-management-plan.pdf) describes in detail the policy regarding data sharing, which is through a system of managed open access. The steps below highlight how to apply for access to the data included in this paper and all other ALSPAC data.The ALSPAC data management plan  which describes the process of accessing the data and samples in detail, and outlines the costs associated with doing so.Please read theALSPAC research proposals database, which lists all research projects that have been approved since April 2011.You may also find it useful to browse the fully searchablesubmit your research proposal for consideration by the ALSPAC Executive Committee. You will receive a response within 10 working days to advise you whether your proposal has been approved.Pleasealspac-data@bristol.ac.uk.If you have any questions about accessing data, please emaild.a.lawlor@bristol.ac.uk) or M. Lewcock (Melanie.Lewcock@bristol.ac.uk).We are very keen for ALSPAC-G2 data to be enhanced and used by external collaborators and are happy for email queries to D.A. Lawlor .Please note that the study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary , including the available stored biosamples, alongside the participant information sheet that we developed with ALSPAC-G2 children for use from age ~9-years, can be accessed on the Open Science Framework. DOI: I have no additional comments to make. The authors have fully and appropriately addressed the comments I provided. I am very grateful for the careful attention to the comments made and the amendments made to the paper as a result. It is excellent to see this article published.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. This is an exciting research initiative to create a multi-generational data resource building on an existing longitudinal birth cohort study that has already produced some excellent research results. The aims of the research are appropriate.A challenge with multi-generational cohorts  is which of the G0 through G2 populations is the index generation - and then what is the generalisability of the others. It seems in this case that G1 is the cohort which is clearly generalisable to a "population of interest" and that G0 and G2 will always be relevant only relative to that generation. This becomes especially problematic when trying to answer research questions that are relevant to G2. Technically it may take three plus decades to collect all G2 information. This matters because those who do reproduce from G1  at an early age (currently up to 28?) are systematically different from those who reproduce later even in terms of parental age at first birth. This bias is confounded further by fertility rates and number of offspring in a G2 cohort that aims to capture all offspring. Hence any full analyses to address the overarching research aims with respect to G2 (and G! parenthood) cannot be properly conducted until all reproductive events have concluded. This limitation is not adequately addressed in the current text. Furthermore, this Open G2 cohort (so described) are currently having data collected using bespoke digital tools, including mobile devices - will this still be relevant for G2 children born in two decades time? This needs further explanation/discussion in the text.The methodology to deal with the comparability of measurement taken over two or more decades on the G2 (and G1 parents) also needs to be better explained.Also of note currently is the low rate of agreement to participate in the G1/G2 collection  - 52% based on 93% invited and 56% agreed. Statistical imputation makes sense but it is not clear how the bias in those delivering G2 offspring and the determinants of this can compensate for the fertility biases - more clarity in this regard would assist.It is clear that analyses to date have focussed on age specific analyses  - which seems appropriate - it would be helpful to see further detail around how this will be managed as births accumulate and what research questions can be addressed in the immediate, 5 and 10 year future for example.While creating a comparison cohort would be a useful adjunct to the recruitment of the G2 cohort this seems an unlikely reality in the short term given the bias in fertility rates and parental age at birth (as above) - if this is feasible then further details are required. On the positive side making the multigenerational data resource available is excellent and the Data Access process is clearly articulated. Over the next two or more decades this will create a unique three generation resource - the challenge to users will be how to utilise appropriate methodologies to deal with the complexities of and delays in data capture over time. However the aim to recruit all G2 births, while scientifically rational, is logistically challenging and introduces some methodological issues and limitations that currently appear to only be partially addressed in the paper. In particular: I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. This is an exciting research initiative to create a multi-generational data resource building on an existing longitudinal birth cohort study that has already produced some excellent research results. The aims of the research are appropriate.However, the aim to recruit all G2 births, while scientifically rational, is logistically challenging and introduces some methodological issues and limitations that currently appear to only be partially addressed in the paper.In particular:A challenge with multi-generational cohorts  is which of the G0 through G2 populations is the index generation - and then what is the generalisability of the others. It seems in this case that G1 is the cohort which is clearly generalisable to a "population of interest" and that G0 and G2 will always be relevant only relative to that generation. This becomes especially problematic when trying to answer research questions that are relevant to G2. Technically it may take three plus decades to collect all G2 information. This matters because those who do reproduce from G1  at an early age (currently up to 28?) are systematically different from those who reproduce later even in terms of parental age at first birth. This bias is confounded further by fertility rates and number of offspring in a G2 cohort that aims to capture all offspring. Hence any full analyses to address the overarching research aims with respect to G2 (and G! parenthood) cannot be properly conducted until all reproductive events have concluded. This limitation is not adequately addressed in the current text.Response Pregnancy And Childhood (see e.g.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8527273) giving equal prominence to G0 and G1. As a scientific case for longitudinal follow-up provided support to continue the study the name was changed to Avon LongitudinalParents and Children (https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/1/111/694290/). We have however, added a section to the part of the discussion on strengths and limitations on ‘Representativeness of different generations to the target population’:We have not emphasised an index generation as ALSPAC is and always has been a resource for the global research community. As with other such UK National cohorts we do not dictate how other scientists use the resource . Whilst we see considerable benefit in doing research that uses more than one generation the resource can and will continue to use single generations. That said, this cohort profile and the previous ALSPAC profile is hopefully a valuable resource for the research community that should highlight issues that should be considered by anyone using the data. We have not specified an index generation in the revised paper as we are not sure it is possible to say that should be G0 or G1. The resource has evolved since it was started nearly 30 years ago and the addition of G2 is just one recent example of that evolution. For example, the study was originally called the Avon Longitudinal Study ofRepresentativeness of different generations to the target population“2 They were more affluent and more likely to be White European than the whole of the UK in the early 1990s, which reflects the difference between the population in the South West of England where the ALSAPC resource is based and the rest of the UK.2 At age 16-years their children (ALSPAC-G1 – i.e. the parents of ALSPAC-G2) had somewhat higher school test scores than the national average, with this difference increasing in sub-samples based on increasing loss to follow-up.1 As recruitment of ALSPAC-G2 has been higher for those whose ALSPAC-G1 parents were most engaged with the study it is possible that over time ALSPAC-G2 will show greater differences to national averages. We will monitor that through the extensive record linkage, including data on education. Whilst selection bias and representativeness are sometimes treated as if they reflect the same concept, here we consider that lack of representativeness to the target population may bias estimates of prevalence but does not necessarily influence association or causal effect estimates. There have been considerable debates on this topic (see for example28-33), with evidence that representativeness is not necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of association or effect,28-32 though this will depend on the extent of selection into a study and the availability of data to predict this.20,33 In this regard a key strength of ALSPAC-G2 is the existence of extensive data on previous generations and linkage to national data across all generations. 33 The original women recruited to ALSPAC (i.e. ALSPAC-G0) had similar socioeconomic characteristics and ethnic backgrounds to those of the population of the former county of Avon (South West region of England).34,35). Once we have had the opportunity to invite all of ALSPAC-G2 we will have a unique study in which to explore the relationships of age at which couples become pregnant/parents across a wide age range within a relatively homogeneous cohort in terms of date and place of birth. Furthermore, this Open G2 cohort (so described) are currently having data collected using bespoke digital tools, including mobile devices - will this still be relevant for G2 children born in two decades time? This needs further explanation/discussion in the text. The methodology to deal with the comparability of measurement taken over two or more decades on the G2 (and G1 parents) also needs to be better explained.ResponseWe agree this is an important point across all of the generations and have now extended our discussion of this with a subheading that highlights the issue of harmonising repeat measurements across the generations:“Limitations related to data collection approaches and their change over timeThere are issues related to which measurement tools to use and potential differences in measurement error and/or the specificity of measurements across generations for all types of data, from biomarker through to socioeconomic and from specific research collected to record linkage data. We describe these issues and our current approach to them below.36 Batch effects from mass spectrometry (MS) metabolomics can be minimised by repeat normalisation across batches as assays are repeated in new cohort members and for chip based analyses for example with epigenomic (DNA methylation) adjusting for technical factors can minimise differences across batches. Furthermore, collaborative research shows considerable consistency across cohorts, despite MS metabolomic (e.g.37) and DNA methylation data (e.g.38) having clearly been obtained in different batches between studies included in those collaborations.Having an open cohort raises questions about when to complete assays on stored samples— for example, should we wait until we have 500, 1000, or some higher number of cord-blood samples before we assay DNA methylation on them? Currently, we invite enquiries about using the biosamples and will manage these on a case-by-case basis taking account of participant numbers with a given sample, risk of disclosure and assay/processing features such as the extent of ‘batch’ effects. Our aim is to ensure the resource provides the best data for the widest group of scientists. We have considerable experience of obtaining and analysing multi-‘omic biomarker data and are aware that ‘batch-effects’ vary by analysis type. For the quantified NMR metabolomics used in ALSPAC-G0 and -G1 and many other cohorts, batch effects are minimal.There are important considerations about whether we should use older data collection tools, such as those used to assess mental health and lifestyle / behaviours in previous ALSPAC generations (with the advantage that direct comparisons across generations can be made), or more contemporary tools that might be considered more valid and allow comparisons with other contemporary cohorts. Currently, we have mostly used similar tools to those used in the previous generation, but over the next 12–24 months we will undertake workshops with experts in relevant fields to explore whether there are some measures for which we should be using more contemporary tools.Differences across generations on characteristics obtained through record linkage may be influenced by changes in how disease outcomes are classified over time, changes in policy  and the methods used to obtain information in these data systems, which are primarily used for administrative or policy purposes rather than research. The data management systems in ALSPAC, together with national initiatives, will ensure we remain aware of such changes and we will provide guidance to users of the resource about their potential impact on ALSPAC data.We anticipate that most ALSPAC-G2 participants will continue to be born up to the early 2040s . By the 2040s there will also be ALSPAC-G3 and -G4 participants. Continuing to recruit these participants and generations adds considerable value to the existing ALSPAC resource for the whole scientific community. It has the potential to uniquely address important research questions related to how development and adverse health outcomes are transmitted across generations and how we might intervene to maximise population health. However, it may be difficult to continue to obtain the necessary funds for continued recruitment of, and data collection from, multiple generations, and it may also be difficult to retain participant engagement over prolonged periods of time. To address this, we are pursuing more extensive record linkage and novel remote minimally intrusive data capture, such as via smart-watches 38and sensors for biomarkers 10, to provide efficient (and accurate) data collection. The novel data sensors we are currently using are likely to be replaced by new systems in the future. We are committed to continue piloting novel data collection methods in ALSPAC-G2 and calibrate them against approaches that have previously been used in ALSPAC-G2 and -G0 and -G1. As an example, we have recently changed from a continuous glucose monitoring system that required participants to complete four finger prick tests of their capillary blood glucose per day, to one that does not have this requirement. We have directly compared these two systems in (non-ALSPAC) volunteers who wore both monitors at the same time to establish consistency in traces between them. We intend to learn from our increasing experience of harmonising data collected in many different ways across cohorts in several collaborations. With respect to birth cohorts , this is currently being undertaken for substantial amounts of data in the Horizon2020 funded LifeCycle collaboration (https://lifecycle-project.eu/), which will, together with other collaborative efforts, provide the foundations for continuing this with different data collection tools over coming years and decades in ALSPAC-G2.39 . A ‘learning effect’ will be unlikely for direct measurements such as weight, height and biosample assays. The ALSPAC-G2 participants are mostly born in the South West of England  and are mostly of White European origin. This has some advantages for exploring between generational differences, but we acknowledge replication of findings from ALSPAC-G2 with other more diverse cohorts will be importantThe fact that this is a cohort in which at least one parent has been actively engaged with the study for over 20-years may mean that they have ‘learnt’ how to respond to some research questions, such as those related to mental health, or complete some assessments, such as cognitive function tests.” (Discussion section Page 28-29)Also of note currently is the low rate of agreement to participate in the G1/G2 collection - 52%  based on 93% invited and 56% agreed. Statistical imputation makes sense but it is not clear how the bias in those delivering G2 offspring and the determinants of this can compensate for the fertility biases - more clarity in this regard would assist.  Response We have considerably extended the section on selection bias in the discussion. In relation to this point, this includes the ability to use record linkage and existing research data to inform imputation models and methods for dealing with selection bias.The updated section is copied in full below:“Selection bias There are a number of sources of potential selection bias in ALSPAC-G2  20. Some of these, such as incomplete recruitment and loss to follow-up, are common to most prospective cohort studies, whereas others, such as the current recruitment at a relatively young age and the focus of analyses in cross-generational effects, are more specific to ALSPAC-G2. Below we describe some of the key potential sources of selection bias, general methods that might be used to mitigate against some of the selection mechanisms, and data and analytical approaches that could be used to explore and control for potential selection bias. It is important to note that appropriate methods for exploring and controlling for selection bias are specific to the analyses being undertaken. Furthermore, ALSPAC is a resource for the global scientific community to use and we do not dictate how scientists using this resource complete their analyses. Whilst we make suggestions here that might be used to explore selection bias, researchers must decide how they want to approach this for the specific questions they are exploring with these data.1,2. Our response is 56% of those invited  and respondents are more likely to be those already engaged with ALSPAC as indicated by being more likely to have participated in the two most recent clinic assessments for all ALSPAC-G1 participants. Once recruited a high proportion remain actively engaged with follow-up, though the extent to which this will continue as the cohort ages is unknown. Currently, ALSPAC-G2 are children being born to relatively young parents (mean 22 years (range 17-26)); though the age range of parents will increase with continued follow-up. Whilst cross-generational comparisons that have already been published and/or presented in this paper are age matched, it is possible that the factors that influence starting a family at a relatively young age differ across generations. If these factors are unknown or unmeasured (and therefore cannot be controlled for) there may be bias in the cross generational comparisons. This may be further complicated by secular trends in some of these factors. For example, preliminary analyses presented here suggest that age matched ALSPAC-G1 mothers with an ALSPAC-G2 child are more educated than were their ALSPAC-G0 mother’s generation when recruited during their pregnancy ~30years ago. This difference may be due to true differences between UK pregnant women across generations. For example, there may have been a reduction in the stigma attached to becoming pregnant at a young age and hence a reduction in the association of education/socioeconomic position with it. ALSPAC-G1 mothers may also be truly more educated than their parent’s generation as a result of changes in education policy and secular trends related to that policy. Over the last 20-30 years there has been a doubling of the proportion of people obtaining a University degree in the UK, stimulated by policy changes, including previous further education establishments becoming Universities in the 1990s. Alternatively these cross-generational differences in education could be due to selection bias. This is supported by our finding that those ALSPAC-G1 parents recruited as pregnant women or parents to ALSPAC-G2 are more engaged with the study than those not recruited (Table 2), and that ALSPAC-G1 participants who are more engaged with the study are on average more educated than those less engagedAt the time we began recruitment, ALSPAC-G1 participants were aged 19–21 years and some had already become parents. Thus, whilst the cohort is currently of relatively young parents, we do not have detailed pregnancy data on those who became pregnant before 19-years. To maximise participation of all ALSPAC-G2 we will continue to recruit participants at different ages. Forthose ALSPAC-G2 participants recruited after birth, either because they were born prior to when we began recruitment or because their parents only decided to join ALSPAC-G2 when their child/children were older, their mother’s pregnancy information and their birth/infancy information will be limited to what we can obtain from record linkage. With the extensive linkage that is now possible, including primary-, secondary- and community health care, education and environmental linkage we will still have a lot of information on these pregnancies and the resulting infants. Furthermore, the proportion recruited in pregnancy has increased over time and once a family have joined ALSPAC-G2, subsequent children are mostly recruited during their mother’s pregnancy.To mitigate against some of these sources of bias we aim to minimise participant burden by using record linkage and remote data collection as much as possible. The ability to do this is supported by the existence of a National Health Service in the UK and large-scale initiatives across UK research funders for supporting ethical and appropriate access to anonymised health, environmental, and socioeconomic data. Linked data can also be used for describing the likely nature of any selection bias and informing sensitivity analyses. Both existing research and record linkage data, including on grandparents and parents (ALSPAC-G0 and -G1), can be used to explore potential selection bias from any of the sources described above, and to inform sensitivity analyses to explore the extent of bias that might occur for any given analyses 2021,22 Furthermore, ALSPAC data are available for scientists across the world to use. Whilst we highlight potential sources of selection bias in this cohort profile and will do so through conference presentations and the study website, we cannot dictate how other scientists approach these issues when using the study data. We will encourage others to explore issues of selection bias when using ALSPAC-G2 data and make details of their methods open access (including via linked Wellcome Open Research publications).. In this section we describe some of these approaches in general terms, as it is important to note that which methods are most appropriate to use will depend on the specific research questions being addressed and the likely source of selection (missing data).21 useful to illustrate specific sources of selection bias and their assumptions of any methods used to explore and control for these (see for example references20-24). Selection bias results from missing data  thus methods for dealing with missing data are appropriate approaches to exploring and controlling for selection bias. Publication reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening The Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology . When analysing repeat measurements, e.g. trajectories of change in BMI or cognitive function, all participants with at least one value (of the variable that has been assessed repeatedly) can be included in the main analyses under a MAR assumption. Ideally, one would want to use more than one method, with differing assumptions, for exploring selection bias (bias due to missing data). In the preliminary cross-generational analyses presented here we compared results from complete case analyses to those using multiple imputation (including using two different approaches to the latter) and found similar results across all three approaches which increases confidence in these not being biased.) require authors to describe the extent of missing data and how potential bias from that has been explored and we strongly encourage users of ALSPAC to adhere to those reporting guidelines. Such reporting guidelines do not recommend specific approaches, e.g. for dealing with missing data, just that there is clarity about the issue. A common approach to dealing with missing data is complete case analyses . This is in general expected to be unbiased if missingness is not related to the outcome in the main analysis model conditioned on exposure and all covariables included in the main analyses.In general, research data that have been specifically collected as part of a study and linked data have complementary characteristics for exploring selection bias under the MAR assumption. Specific research data might predict missing values more strongly because it will have been collected at a similar time to variables with missing data (e.g. in sweeps of data collection) and will include some repeat collections of data obtained using the same methods across time. Such data area also likely to be obtained more extensively  and more precisely . However, specific research data may have more missingness due to loss to follow-up or some measures not being completed by some participants. Linked data is often available on all (or a large proportion) of participants.1,2 and Figure 3), which considerably enhance the possibility for exploring and controlling for potential selection bias. Currently, ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1 have been linked to obstetric-, primary-, secondary- and community health data, mortality and migration records and education data. Recent geocoding has also provided linkage to detailed environmental and area socioeconomic data.25 Similar linkage for ALSPAC-G2 and the new (to ALSPAC) partners of existing ALSPAC-G1 is on-going and will be regularly updated. These data can be informative for methods assuming data are MAR (e.g.22) and also where selection (missing information) is assumed to be missing not at random (i.e. where bias can remain even after taking into account observed predictors of missingness).24 For example, using linked education data as proxy for IQ in ALSPAC-G1 it has been shown that methods assuming data were missing at random underestimated the strength of the association in comparison to the method assuming missing not at random.24 In addition to linked data, genome-wide genetic data, which is available on a high proportion of ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1 participants and will be on ALSPAC-G2 and the newly recruited partners of ALSPAC-G1, can be useful in exploring the nature of missing data.26 All generations of ALSPAC have both repeatedly assessed research and record linked data on many variables  have used the methods described above extensively in ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1, their use for cross-generational analyses, in particular where the inclusion of siblings varies considerably across generations, has not yet been extensively explored. As demonstrated with ALSPAC-G2, such cross-generational analyses by necessity either restrict analyses to a narrow age range of parents in one generation (e.g. if we were to only continue to recruit ALSPAC-G2 for the next 5-years) or have participants recruited over a long period of years in one generation (as we hope to do with ALSPAC-G2).Whilst we, In the cross-generational analyses presented here we have been careful to describe the results as preliminary and illustrative. We undertook complete case analyses and used multiple imputation to explore potential selection due to missing data in the cross-generational comparisons presented here (Table 3). We used two approaches to multiple imputation, one including both generations in the same imputation analyses and one that separated the G0/G1 from the G1/G2 generations for the initial imputation. We found results were very similar across all three approaches. However, for simplicity, in these illustrative analyses we restricted the maternal age range in both generations to that of the ALSPAC-G1/G2 participants and to just one pregnancy per mother in each generation. This resulted in more of the G1/G2 pregnancies being excluded from analyses than G0/G1 pregnancies, which could have introduced bias that is not addressed in our multiple imputation analyses. In future research we plan to develop and use methods that can more fully explore the sources of selection bias in cross-generational analyses. This includes methods that combine multiple imputation and other missing data methods with  methods that appropriately take account of the complex multi-level structure of the data . These methods and related analysis code will be disseminated widely via the ALSPAC website and via links to this cohort profile. We hope that other researchers will also use the unique multi-generational data of ALSPAC for exploring the likely impact of selection bias on this and other human multigeneration cohorts.” (Discussion section Page 24-27)Apologies, we were not sure just what the reviewer meant by “While creating a comparison cohort would be a useful adjunct to the recruitment of the G2 cohort this seems an unlikely reality in the short term given the bias in fertility rates and parental age at birth (as above) - if this is feasible then further details are required.”We are not planning a comparator cohort for ALSPAC G2, but rather for three clinical cohorts that we are involved with  ALSPAC-G2 will be used as a ‘healthy’ comparator group for some analyses in those clinical cohorts. For the follow-up of participants from the IVF and congenital heart disease cohorts are using/will use the ALSAPC clinic and ALSPAC-G2 protocols. Participants in these two cohorts are/will be initially be recruited from hospital and primary or secondary case antenatal clinics and have baseline data collected at those clinics and from record linkage. Follow-up will be through attendance at our research clinics where we also see ALSPAC participants, as well was with extensive record linkage.On the positive side making the multigenerational data resource available is excellent and the Data Access process is clearly articulated. Over the next two or more decades this will create a unique three generation resource - the challenge to users will be how to utilise appropriate methodologies to deal with the complexities of and delays in data capture over time.Response We agree with this comment and hope that this profile highlights sufficiently many of the complexities. As we note in the revised version we have a programme of work on developing methods that that can address potential missing data and take advantage of the underlying complex family structure but also hope that other researchers will use the resource for methodological research as well as applied research and share these methods and code so that we can disseminate them via the study website and also link them to this profile.  This is a very informative description of a particular cohort of children called ALSPAC-G2. These children are the grandchildren of the original ALSPAC-G0 cohort of mothers who were recruited into the ALSPAC study if they were due to give birth in the Avon area in 1991/1992. The children of the ALSPAC-G0 cohort  have been followed into early adulthood and are now having children themselves. Their children (ALSPAC-G2 or Children of the Children of the 90s) are in the process of being recruited into the study, providing an intergenerational study spanning three generations. This paper describes ALSPAC-G2, the motivation for collecting data on these children and the key hypotheses that can be addressed with the data. It provides a vitally important resource guide for those considering using the data. The paper also reports some very interesting work that has already been done with the data and published elsewhere. This nicely illustrates the strengths of ALSPAC-G0/1/2 and certainly enhances the paper. However, it does mean that some of the findings reported cannot be verified with the data provided in the paper (though full references are given). This is why I have indicated that the detailed account of methods of analysis is only partly available in the paper. I do not see this as a problem however, and it is common in this type of paper to summarise others’ work in this way. The study is scientifically sound without further changes. However, I would note the following issues which the authors may wish to consider or comment on.Significant issues The summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the data is very clear and comprehensive. In particular, the authors acknowledge the increasing selection bias that is likely to arise as ALSPAC recruits subsequent generations. It also discusses some of the potential risks associated with that. In particular, the data from ALSPAC-G2 will not be as representative of the Avon area as the original cohort. That said, the linkage with administrative data offers a potential opportunity not just to draw in additional phenotype data etc. but also to provide a source of external data that can be used to assess the extent of the representativeness of the ALSPAC data. This might be noted. As discussed, ALSPAC is a local cohort study but of course participants move away. Participants are offered travel costs to the Bristol based clinics for the assessments so technically even if a cohort member of ALSPAC-G1 has moved away, they can participate. However, it would be useful to note the proportion of ALSPAC-G1 parents who are no longer living in Bristol and response rates to ALSPAC-G2 across those who have and have not moved away. This would help quantify any potential selection bias on this particular issue. The comparisons of young mothers across the two generations do not discuss the fact that selection into early motherhood may be driven by different (unobserved) factors across the two generations. If, for example, attitudes have changed and early childbirth is now viewed more negatively by women in the more recent generation (even when comparing women with similar characteristics), this may lead to selection bias into young parenthood. This may be particularly relevant for some outcomes, such as maternal postnatal depression. There is no way to account for this empirically but it might be noted. Table 3. The comparison of age at first pregnancy between the two cohorts  depends crucially on restricting the sample to age 19-26. Otherwise the mean age at first birth statistic will be misleading because, given that ALSPAC-G1 is a cohort of roughly the same age, we will not know the true mean age of mother at birth of first child until some more years have passed and others in the ALSPAC-G1 generation have had their children. This is carefully footnoted but I wonder whether the age restriction might usefully appear in the title of the table.Minor issues The abstract mentions data collection and notes that ALSPAC-G2 collects a wide range of “social” data. In the main body of the text this is sometimes changed to “socioeconomic”. The latter is more accurate and might replace the word “social” throughout. Bullet 4 on page 3 is somewhat strangely worded. The intention of ALSPAC-G2 is to undertake intergenerational analyses of the factors influencing decisions by ALSPAC-G0 compared to ALSPAC-G1 about whether, and when, to start a family, parenting patterns, child development, parental and child mental and physical health and ‘work-family/outside of work’ balance. This main aim might come earlier in the bullet before discussing the variables that are in the data? There is a typographical error on page 3 under the section “Who is in the cohort?”. “We aim is to recruit..” References to the Bristol IVF and congenital heart disease cohorts might be provided to help the reader.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. This is a very informative description of a particular cohort of children called ALSPAC-G2. These children are the grandchildren of the original ALSPAC-G0 cohort of mothers who were recruited into the ALSPAC study if they were due to give birth in the Avon area in 1991/1992. The children of the ALSPAC-G0 cohort  have been followed into early adulthood and are now having children themselves. Their children (ALSPAC-G2 or Children of the Children of the 90s) are in the process of being recruited into the study, providing an intergenerational study spanning three generations. This paper describes ALSPAC-G2, the motivation for collecting data on these children and generations. This paper describes ALSPAC-G2, the motivation for collecting data on these children and the key hypotheses that can be addressed with the data. It provides a vitally important resource guide for those considering using the data.The paper also reports some very interesting work that has already been done with the data andpublished elsewhere. This nicely illustrates the strengths of ALSPAC-G0/1/2 and certainly enhances the paper. However, it does mean that some of the findings reported cannot be verified with the data provided in the paper (though full references are given). This is why I have indicated that the detailed account of methods of analysis is only partly available in the paper. I do not see this as a problem however, and it is common in this type of paper to summarise others’ work in this way.The study is scientifically sound without further changes. However, I would note the following issueswhich the authors may wish to consider or comment on.Significant issuesThe summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the data is very clear and comprehensive. In particular, the authors acknowledge the increasing selection bias that is likely to arise as ALSPAC recruits subsequent generations. It also discusses some of the potential risks associated with that. In particular, the data from ALSPAC-G2 will not be as representative of the Avon area as the original cohort. That said, the linkage with administrative data offers a potential opportunity not just to draw in additional phenotype data etc. but also to provide a source of external data that can be used to assess the extent of the representativeness of the ALSPAC data. This might be noted.ResponseWe thank the reviewer for these comments. In response to reviewer 1, in the revised paper we have extended the section on strengths and limitations and use subheadings covering three key areas – selection bias, representativeness, and measurements across generations. Below we have copied the now extended discussion of the first two of these, which we hope provide sufficient information to inform future users of the data. Within this we have also tried to encourage future users to also share methodological insights into selection bias/representativeness within this resource. These will also have potential value for other studies with complex family data.“Selection bias There are a number of sources of potential selection bias in ALSPAC-G2  20. Some of these, such as incomplete recruitment and loss to follow-up, are common to most prospective cohort studies, whereas others, such as the current recruitment at a relatively young age and the focus of analyses in cross-generational effects, are more specific to ALSPAC-G2. Below we describe some of the key potential sources of selection bias, general methods that might be used to mitigate against some of the selection mechanisms, and data and analytical approaches that could be used to explore and control for potential selection bias. It is important to note that appropriate methods for exploring and controlling for selection bias are specific to the analyses being undertaken. Furthermore, ALSPAC is a resource for the global scientific community to use and we do not dictate how scientists using this resource complete their analyses. Whilst we make suggestions here that might be used to explore selection bias, researchers must decide how they want to approach this for the specific questions they are exploring with these data.1,2. Our response is 56% of those invited  and respondents are more likely to be those already engaged with ALSPAC as indicated by being more likely to have participated in the two most recent clinic assessments for all ALSPAC-G1 participants. Once recruited a high proportion remain actively engaged with follow-up, though the extent to which this will continue as the cohort ages is unknown. Currently, ALSPAC-G2 are children being born to relatively young parents (mean 22 years (range 17-26)); though the age range of parents will increase with continued follow-up. Whilst cross-generational comparisons that have already been published and/or presented in this paper are age matched, it is possible that the factors that influence starting a family at a relatively young age differ across generations. If these factors are unknown or unmeasured (and therefore cannot be controlled for) there may be bias in the cross generational comparisons. This may be further complicated by secular trends in some of these factors. For example, preliminary analyses presented here suggest that age matched ALSPAC-G1 mothers with an ALSPAC-G2 child are more educated than were their ALSPAC-G0 mother’s generation when recruited during their pregnancy ~30years ago. This difference may be due to true differences between UK pregnant women across generations. For example, there may have been a reduction in the stigma attached to becoming pregnant at a young age and hence a reduction in the association of education/socioeconomic position with it. ALSPAC-G1 mothers may also be truly more educated than their parent’s generation as a result of changes in education policy and secular trends related to that policy. Over the last 20-30 years there has been a doubling of the proportion of people obtaining a University degree in the UK, stimulated by policy changes, including previous further education establishments becoming Universities in the 1990s. Alternatively these cross-generational differences in education could be due to selection bias. This is supported by our finding that those ALSPAC-G1 parents recruited as pregnant women or parents to ALSPAC-G2 are more engaged with the study than those not recruited (Table 2), and that ALSPAC-G1 participants who are more engaged with the study are on average more educated than those less engagedAt the time we began recruitment, ALSPAC-G1 participants were aged 19–21 years and some had already become parents. Thus, whilst the cohort is currently of relatively young parents, we do not have detailed pregnancy data on those who became pregnant before 19-years. To maximise participation of all ALSPAC-G2 we will continue to recruit participants at different ages. Forthose ALSPAC-G2 participants recruited after birth, either because they were born prior to when we began recruitment or because their parents only decided to join ALSPAC-G2 when their child/children were older, their mother’s pregnancy information and their birth/infancy information will be limited to what we can obtain from record linkage. With the extensive linkage that is now possible, including primary-, secondary- and community health care, education and environmental linkage we will still have a lot of information on these pregnancies and the resulting infants. Furthermore, the proportion recruited in pregnancy has increased over time and once a family have joined ALSPAC-G2, subsequent children are mostly recruited during their mother’s pregnancy.To mitigate against some of these sources of bias we aim to minimise participant burden by using record linkage and remote data collection as much as possible. The ability to do this is supported by the existence of a National Health Service in the UK and large-scale initiatives across UK research funders for supporting ethical and appropriate access to anonymised health, environmental, and socioeconomic data. Linked data can also be used for describing the likely nature of any selection bias and informing sensitivity analyses. Both existing research and record linkage data, including on grandparents and parents (ALSPAC-G0 and -G1), can be used to explore potential selection bias from any of the sources described above, and to inform sensitivity analyses to explore the extent of bias that might occur for any given analyses 2021,22 Furthermore, ALSPAC data are available for scientists across the world to use. Whilst we highlight potential sources of selection bias in this cohort profile and will do so through conference presentations and the study website, we cannot dictate how other scientists approach these issues when using the study data. We will encourage others to explore issues of selection bias when using ALSPAC-G2 data and make details of their methods open access (including via linked Wellcome Open Research publications).. In this section we describe some of these approaches in general terms, as it is important to note that which methods are most appropriate to use will depend on the specific research questions being addressed and the likely source of selection (missing data).21 useful to illustrate specific sources of selection bias and their assumptions of any methods used to explore and control for these (see for example references20-24). Selection bias results from missing data  thus methods for dealing with missing data are appropriate approaches to exploring and controlling for selection bias. Publication reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening The Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology . When analysing repeat measurements, e.g. trajectories of change in BMI or cognitive function, all participants with at least one value (of the variable that has been assessed repeatedly) can be included in the main analyses under a MAR assumption. Ideally, one would want to use more than one method, with differing assumptions, for exploring selection bias (bias due to missing data). In the preliminary cross-generational analyses presented here we compared results from complete case analyses to those using multiple imputation (including using two different approaches to the latter) and found similar results across all three approaches which increases confidence in these not being biased.) require authors to describe the extent of missing data and how potential bias from that has been explored and we strongly encourage users of ALSPAC to adhere to those reporting guidelines. Such reporting guidelines do not recommend specific approaches, e.g. for dealing with missing data, just that there is clarity about the issue. A common approach to dealing with missing data is complete case analyses . This is in general expected to be unbiased if missingness is not related to the outcome in the main analysis model conditioned on exposure and all covariables included in the main analyses.In general, research data that have been specifically collected as part of a study and linked data have complementary characteristics for exploring selection bias under the MAR assumption. Specific research data might predict missing values more strongly because it will have been collected at a similar time to variables with missing data (e.g. in sweeps of data collection) and will include some repeat collections of data obtained using the same methods across time. Such data area also likely to be obtained more extensively  and more precisely . However, specific research data may have more missingness due to loss to follow-up or some measures not being completed by some participants. Linked data is often available on all (or a large proportion) of participants.1,2 and Figure 3), which considerably enhance the possibility for exploring and controlling for potential selection bias. Currently, ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1 have been linked to obstetric-, primary-, secondary- and community health data, mortality and migration records and education data. Recent geocoding has also provided linkage to detailed environmental and area socioeconomic data.25 Similar linkage for ALSPAC-G2 and the new (to ALSPAC) partners of existing ALSPAC-G1 is on-going and will be regularly updated. These data can be informative for methods assuming data are MAR (e.g.22) and also where selection (missing information) is assumed to be missing not at random (i.e. where bias can remain even after taking into account observed predictors of missingness).24 For example, using linked education data as proxy for IQ in ALSPAC-G1 it has been shown that methods assuming data were missing at random underestimated the strength of the association in comparison to the method assuming missing not at random.24 In addition to linked data, genome-wide genetic data, which is available on a high proportion of ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1 participants and will be on ALSPAC-G2 and the newly recruited partners of ALSPAC-G1, can be useful in exploring the nature of missing data.26 All generations of ALSPAC have both repeatedly assessed research and record linked data on many variables  have used the methods described above extensively in ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1, their use for cross-generational analyses, in particular where the inclusion of siblings varies considerably across generations, has not yet been extensively explored. As demonstrated with ALSPAC-G2, such cross-generational analyses by necessity either restrict analyses to a narrow age range of parents in one generation (e.g. if we were to only continue to recruit ALSPAC-G2 for the next 5-years) or have participants recruited over a long period of years in one generation (as we hope to do with ALSPAC-G2).Whilst we, In the cross-generational analyses presented here we have been careful to describe the results as preliminary and illustrative. We undertook complete case analyses and used multiple imputation to explore potential selection due to missing data in the cross-generational comparisons presented here (Table 3). We used two approaches to multiple imputation, one including both generations in the same imputation analyses and one that separated the G0/G1 from the G1/G2 generations for the initial imputation. We found results were very similar across all three approaches. However, for simplicity, in these illustrative analyses we restricted the maternal age range in both generations to that of the ALSPAC-G1/G2 participants and to just one pregnancy per mother in each generation. This resulted in more of the G1/G2 pregnancies being excluded from analyses than G0/G1 pregnancies, which could have introduced bias that is not addressed in our multiple imputation analyses. In future research we plan to develop and use methods that can more fully explore the sources of selection bias in cross-generational analyses. This includes methods that combine multiple imputation and other missing data methods with  methods that appropriately take account of the complex multi-level structure of the data . These methods and related analysis code will be disseminated widely via the ALSPAC website and via links to this cohort profile. We hope that other researchers will also use the unique multi-generational data of ALSPAC for exploring the likely impact of selection bias on this and other human multigeneration cohorts.Representativeness of different generations to the target population2 They were more affluent and more likely to be White European than the whole of the UK in the early 1990s, which reflects the difference between the population in the South West of England where the ALSAPC resource is based and the rest of the UK.2 At age 16-years their children (ALSPAC-G1 – i.e. the parents of ALSPAC-G2) had somewhat higher school test scores than the national average, with this difference increasing in sub-samples based on increasing loss to follow-up.1 As recruitment of ALSPAC-G2 has been higher for those whose ALSPAC-G1 parents were most engaged with the study it is possible that over time ALSPAC-G2 will show greater differences to national averages. We will monitor that through the extensive record linkage, including data on education. Whilst selection bias and representativeness are sometimes treated as if they reflect the same concept, here we consider that lack of representativeness to the target population may bias estimates of prevalence but does not necessarily influence association or causal effect estimates. There have been considerable debates on this topic (see for example28-33), with evidence that representativeness is not necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of association or effect,28-32 though this will depend on the extent of selection into a study and the availability of data to predict this.20,33 In this regard a key strength of ALSPAC-G2 is the existence of extensive data on previous generations and linkage to national data across all generations. 33 The original women recruited to ALSPAC (i.e. ALSPAC-G0) had similar socioeconomic characteristics and ethnic backgrounds to those of the population of the former county of Avon (South West region of England).34,35). Once we have had the opportunity to invite all of ALSPAC-G2 we will have a unique study in which to explore the relationships of age at which couples become pregnant/parents across a wide age range within a relatively homogeneous cohort in terms of date and place of birth.” As discussed, ALSPAC is a local cohort study but of course participants move away. Participants are offered travel costs to the Bristol based clinics for the assessments so technically even if a cohort member of ALSPAC-G1 has moved away, they can participate. However, it would be useful to note the proportion of ALSPAC-G1 parents who are no longer living in Bristol and response rates to ALSPAC-G2 across those who have and have not moved away. This would help quantify any potential selection bias on this particular issue.Responsea priori agreed that this was valuable analyses to undertake and that residence in Bristol at the time of recruitment could be a predictor of missingness and thereforea priori we would include it in the prediction models for the multiple imputation analyses that are presented in both Table 2 and Table 3. As expected given the similarity between respondents and non-respondents with respect to living in Bristol none of the multiple imputation results changed in any substantial way but there are small changes that have been made to the results in these tables in the revised version.The comparisons of young mothers across the two generations do not discuss the fact that selection into early motherhood may be driven by different (unobserved) factors across the two generations. If, for example, attitudes have changed and early childbirth is now viewed more negatively by women in the more recent generation (even when comparing women with similar characteristics), this may lead to selection bias into young parenthood. This may be particularly relevant for some outcomes, such as maternal postnatal depression. There is no way to account for this empirically but it might be noted.ResponseWe agree this is a really useful suggestion and have now added to Table 2 in the revision a row that shows the proportion of people living in the Bristol area (BS postcode) at the time that they were invited to join the study by whether they participated or did not. There is no difference between the two, with 82% of the respondents and 83% of the non-respondents being resident in Bristol. Before doing these additional analyses (i.e. comparing Bristol residency between respondents and non-respondents) weTable 3. The comparison of age at first pregnancy between the two cohorts  depends crucially on restricting the sample to age 19-26. Otherwise the mean age at first birth statistic will be misleading because, given that ALSPAC-G1 is a cohort of roughly the same age, we will not know the true mean age of mother at birth of first child until some more years have passed and others in the ALSPAC-G1 generation have had their children. This is carefully footnoted but I wonder whether the age restriction might usefully appear in the title of the table.ResponseWe agree, and in the extended section on selection bias (see above) this is now noted more clearly.Thank you, we have now made this change to the title of Table 3Minor issuesThe abstract mentions data collection and notes that ALSPAC-G2 collects a wide range of “social” data. In the main body of the text this is sometimes changed to “socioeconomic”. The latter is more accurate and might replace the word “social” throughout.ResponseBullet 4 on page 3 is somewhat strangely worded. The intention of ALSPAC-G2 is to undertakeintergenerational analyses of the factors influencing decisions by ALSPAC-G0 compared to ALSPAC-G1 about whether, and when, to start a family, parenting patterns, child development, parental and child mental and physical health and ‘work-family/outside of work’ balance. This main aim might come earlier in the bullet before discussing the variables that are in the data?ResponseWe have changed most of the times we use ‘social’ to socioeconomic; in particular we have done this when we are referring to socioeconomic data, such as occupational social class or education. We still use social for e.g. ‘social life’ and ‘social media’.We have made this change and reworded this section in the revised paper so that we hope it is now clearer. This now reads as follows:“3. Understanding the impact of major changes that have occurred over the last 20-25 years and how these have influenced differences between ALSPAC-G0 and ALSPAC-G1 in relation to whether, and when, to start a family, parenting patterns, and ‘work-family/outside of work’ balance and of these on differences in health and development of ALSPAC-G1 and ALSPAC-G2. These changes have been unprecedented and include changes in environmental , societal , political  technological  and lifestyle  factors. For example, ALSPAC-G0 participants mostly finished their education and started their careers before the internet was invented. In its current recognisable form, widespread availability of the internet began in 1990 just before ALSPAC-G1 were born but its reach into primary schools will have been limited for this generation. In contrast, ALSPAC-G2 are likely to spend their whole lives extensively using the internet for their education, work and social life.”(introduction section page 3)  There is a typographical error on page 3 under the section “Who is in the cohort?”. “We aim is to recruit..”ResponseReferences to the Bristol IVF and congenital heart disease cohorts might be provided to help the reader.ResponseThis has now been corrected, thank you.We have now added these for the cleft lip and palate and the IVF cohort and note that currently there is no website for the congenital heart disease cohort.