Early-Life Stress Affects Stress-Related Prefrontal Dopamine Activity in Healthy Adults, but Not in Individuals with Psychotic Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early life stress may have a lasting impact on the developmental programming of the dopamine (DA) system implicated in psychosis. Early adversity could promote resilience by calibrating the prefrontal stress-regulatory dopaminergic neurotransmission to improve the individual's fit with the predicted stressful environment. Aberrant reactivity to such match between proximal and distal environments may, however, enhance psychosis disease risk. We explored the combined effects of childhood adversity and adult stress by exposing 12 unmedicated individuals with a diagnosis of non-affective psychotic disorder (NAPD) and 12 healthy controls (HC) to psychosocial stress during an [18F]fallypride positron emission tomography. Childhood trauma divided into early (ages 0-11 years) and late (12-18 years) was assessed retrospectively using a questionnaire. A significant group x childhood trauma interaction on the spatial extent of stress-related [18F]fallypride displacement was observed in the mPFC for early (b = -8.45, t(1,23) = -3.35, p = .004) and late childhood trauma (b = -7.86, t(1,23) = -2.48, p = .023). In healthy individuals, the spatial extent of mPFC DA activity under acute psychosocial stress was positively associated with the severity of early (b = 7.23, t(11) = 3.06, p = .016) as well as late childhood trauma (b = -7.86, t(1,23) = -2.48, p = .023). Additionally, a trend-level main effect of early childhood trauma on subjective stress response emerged within this group (b = -.7, t(11) = -2, p = .07), where higher early trauma correlated with lower subjective stress response to the task. In the NAPD group, childhood trauma was not associated with the spatial extent of the tracer displacement in mPFC (b = -1.22, t(11) = -0.67), nor was there a main effect of trauma on the subjective perception of stress within this group (b = .004, t(11) = .01, p = .99). These findings reveal a potential mechanism of neuroadaptation of prefrontal DA transmission to early life stress and suggest its role in resilience and vulnerability to psychosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".