Resting brain activity in early childhood predicts IQ at 18 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resting brain activity has been widely used as an index of brain development in neuroscience and clinical research. However, it remains unclear whether early differences in resting brain activity have meaningful implications for predicting long-term cognitive outcomes. Using data from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (Zeanah et al., 2003), we examined the impact of institutional rearing and the consequences of early foster care intervention on 18-year IQ. We found that higher resting theta electroencephalogram (EEG) power, reflecting atypical neurodevelopment, across three assessments from 22 to 42 months predicted lower full-scale IQ at 18 years, providing the first evidence that brain activity in early childhood predicts cognitive outcomes into adulthood. In addition, both institutional rearing and later (vs. earlier) foster care intervention predicted higher resting theta power in early childhood, which in turn predicted lower IQ at 18 years. These findings demonstrate that experientially-induced changes in brain activity early in life have profound impact on long-term cognitive development, highlighting the importance of early intervention for promoting healthy development among children living in disadvantaged environments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".