Psychosocial adversity and the developing brain: Findings from the abcd study on 10,000 us children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Childhood exposure to social risk has the potential to disrupt brain development and increase vulnerability to adverse mental health outcomes. Here, we examine the effect of adversity on brain structure and psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, a US population-based sample of 10 year-olds. Methods Personal, caregiver, family and neighborhood characteristics were considered in 9299 unrelated children [age: mean (sd)=9.9 y (0.6); 53% males]. Hidden Markov Models were used identify clusters of participants based on their psychosocial exposure. The identified clusters were compared in terms of current psychopathology, lifetime psychiatric diagnosis, intelligence and brain structure. Results ABCD participants clustered in to a “disadvantaged” group (N=4205) with multiple adverse exposures, and an “enriched” group (N= 5094) with limited exposure to adversity and multiple protective factors. Compared to the enriched group, the disadvantaged group had higher levels of all types of psychopathology and lifetime psychiatric diagnoses; lower scores on fluid and crystallized intelligence; smaller subcortical volumes; thinner sensorimotor cortices and thicker cortex in frontal regions; smaller surface area in temporal regions and larger surface area in the posterior cingulate cortices (all p<0.05 following Bonferroni correction for multiple testing). Conclusions Social adversity has significant and wide-ranging consequences for brain development and psychopathology, that shows little specificity for types of symptoms. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".