Examining the interaction between prenatal stress and polygenic risk for attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder on brain growth in childhood: Findings from the DREAM BIG consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the interactions among prenatal stress, child sex, and polygenic risk scores (PGS) for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on structural developmental changes of brain regions implicated in ADHD. We used data from two population-based birth cohorts: Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) from Singapore (n = 113) and Generation R from Rotterdam, the Netherlands (n = 433). Prenatal stress was assessed using questionnaires. We obtained latent constructs of prenatal adversity and prenatal mood problems using confirmatory factor analyses. The participants were genotyped using genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, and ADHD PGSs were computed. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were acquired at 4.5 and 6 years (GUSTO), and at 10 and 14 years (Generation R). We estimated the age-related rate of change for brain outcomes related to ADHD and performed (1) prenatal stress by sex interaction models, (2) prenatal stress by ADHD PGS interaction models, and (3) 3-way interaction models, including prenatal stress, sex, and ADHD PGS. We observed an interaction between prenatal stress and ADHD PGS on mean cortical thickness annual rate of change in Generation R (i.e., in individuals with higher ADHD PGS, higher prenatal stress was associated with a lower rate of cortical thinning, whereas in individuals with lower ADHD PGS, higher prenatal stress was associated with a higher rate of cortical thinning). None of the other tested interactions were statistically significant. Higher prenatal stress may promote a slower brain developmental rate during adolescence in individuals with higher ADHD genetic vulnerability, whereas it may promote a faster brain developmental rate in individuals with lower ADHD genetic vulnerability.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".