MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134311482 · doi:10.1101/2021.02.25.21252442

Prenatal and Childhood Adverse Events and Child Brain Morphology: A Population-Based Study

2021· preprint· en· W3134311482 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrea P. Cortés Hidalgo, Scott Delaney, Stavroula A. Kourtalidi, Alexander Neumann, Runyu Zou, Ryan L. Muetzel, Marian J. Bakermans‐Kranenburg, Marinus H. van IJzendoorn, Henning Tiemeier, Tonya White

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChina Scholarship CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHarry Frank Guggenheim FoundationErasmus Universiteit RotterdamZonMwNational Institutes of HealthJohn Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation
KeywordsBrain sizePregnancyWhite matterBrain morphometryPopulationPsychologyAmygdalaPrenatal stressPediatricsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingGestationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Prenatal and childhood adverse events have been shown to be related to children’s cognitive and psychological development. However, the influence of early-life adversities on child brain morphology is not well understood and most studies are based on small samples and often examine only one adversity. Thus, the goal of our study is to examine the relationship between cumulative exposures to prenatal and childhood adversities and brain morphology in a large population-based study. Methods Participants included 2,993 children in whom prenatal adversities were reported by mothers at 20-25 weeks of pregnancy and the child’s lifetime exposure to adversities was reported by mothers when the children were 10 years-of-age. The total brain, grey and white matter volumes and the volume of the cerebellum, amygdala and hippocampus were assessed with magnetic resonance imaging when children were 10 years old. Results In total, 36% of children had mothers who were exposed to at least one adversity during pregnancy and 35% of children were exposed to adversities in childhood. In our study sample, the cumulative number of prenatal adversities was not related to any brain outcome. In contrast, per each additional childhood adverse event, the total brain volume was 0.07 standard deviations smaller (SE = 0.02, p = 0.001), with differences in both grey and white matter volumes. Childhood adversities were not related to the amygdala or hippocampal volumes. Additionally, the link between childhood events and the preadolescent brain was not modified by prenatal events and was not explained by maternal psychopathology. Conclusions Our results suggest that childhood adversities, but not prenatal adverse events, are associated with smaller global brain volumes in preadolescence. Notably, this is the first large population-based study to prospectively assess the association between the cumulative number of prenatal adversities and the preadolescent brain morphology. The study findings extend the evidence from high-risk samples, providing support for a link between cumulative childhood adverse events and brain morphology in children from the general population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→