Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
Differential effects of childhood neglect and abuse during sensitive exposure periods on male and female hippocampus
Teicher MH, Anderson CM, Ohashi K, Khan A, McGreenery CE, Bolger EA, Rohan ML, Vitaliano GD.. NeuroImage, 2017-12-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The hippocampus is a highly stress susceptible structure and hippocampal abnormalities have been reported in a host of psychiatric disorders including major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The hippocampus appears to be particularly susceptible to early life stress with a graded reduction in volume based on number of types (multiplicity) or severity of maltreatment. We assessed whether the most important predictors of adult hippocampal volume were multiplicity, severity or duration of exposure or timing of maltreatment during developmental sensitive periods. 3T MRIs were collected on 336 unmedicated, right-handed subjects (132M/204F, 18-25 years). Exposure to broad categories of abuse and neglect during each year of childhood were assessed using the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure scale and evaluated using artificial intelligence and predictive analytics. Male hippocampal volume was predicted by neglect, but not abuse, up through 7 years of age. Female hippocampal volume was predicted by abuse, but not neglect, at 10, 11, 15 and 16 years. Exposure at peak age had greater predictive importance than multiplicity, severity or duration. There were also marked gender differences in subfields and portions (head, body or tail) affected by exposure. History and symptoms of major depression, PTSD or anxiety disorders were not predictive of hippocampal volume once maltreatment was accounted for. Neglect appears to foster inadequate hippocampal development in males while abuse appears to produce a stress-related deficit in females. Studies assessing hippocampal volume in psychiatric disorders need to control for the gender-specific effects of abuse and neglect.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Teicher, M. H., Anderson, C. M., Ohashi, K., Khan, A., McGreenery, C. E., Bolger, E. A., et al. (2018). Differential effects of childhood neglect and abuse during sensitive exposure periods on male and female hippocampus. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.055
Vancouver
Teicher MH, Anderson CM, Ohashi K, Khan A, McGreenery CE, Bolger EA, et al. Differential effects of childhood neglect and abuse during sensitive exposure periods on male and female hippocampus. NeuroImage. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.055. PMID: 29288867.
BibTeX
@article{teicher2018-29288867,
author = {Teicher, M. H. and Anderson, C. M. and Ohashi, K. and Khan, A. and McGreenery, C. E. and Bolger, E. A. and Rohan, M. L. and Vitaliano, G. D.},
title = {{Differential effects of childhood neglect and abuse during sensitive exposure periods on male and female hippocampus}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.055},
pmid = {29288867},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.055}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Exposure at peak age had greater predictive importance than multiplicity, severity or duration.
- There were also marked gender differences in subfields and portions (head, body or tail) affected by exposure.
- History and symptoms of major depression, PTSD or anxiety disorders were not predictive of hippocampal volume once maltreatment was accounted for.
- Neglect appears to foster inadequate hippocampal development in males while abuse appears to produce a stress-related deficit in females.
- Studies assessing hippocampal volume in psychiatric disorders need to control for the gender-specific effects of abuse and neglect.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29288867) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans
Also tagged “disorder”
492 studies in the library carry the topic tag “disorder”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 492 tagged studies.