Abstract
Background
Childhood maltreatment (CM) is related to structural alterations in adult limbic regions. However, the change in limbic structures remains unclear in adolescents from the general population since most reports stem from clinical samples. Additionally, large longitudinal neuroimaging studies in community adolescents reporting CM are scarce. Hence, we aimed to investigate the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between CM and the structure and function of the extended limbic and reward systems throughout adolescence.
Methods
We analysed data of 634 community adolescents from the IMAGEN cohort at age 14, followed up at age 18. CM was inferred from the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire completed at age 18, yielding subgroups with CM (N = 105) or without CM (N = 529). Using 3-Tesla T1 MRI, we performed between-group voxel-wise analyses at ages 14 and 18 to investigate grey matter volumes (GMV). In addition, GMV were investigated longitudinally between ages 14 and 18. Finally, using functional MRI and the Monetary Incentive Delay task, we measured reward anticipation and feedback sensitivity between groups at ages 14 and 18.
Results
Both at ages 14 and 18, adolescents reporting CM had lower GMV in the right insula, left orbitofrontal cortex, putamen, superior medial frontal gyrus, paracentral lobule, and other paralimbic regions, but no significant differences in reward response. Longitudinal analyses revealed no GMV difference between age groups.
Conclusion
CM was associated with GMV alterations persisting from early to late adolescence in the limbic regions in community individuals. Therefore, these findings further support the need for research on targeted preventive interventions for adolescents who have experienced CM.
Keywords: adolescence, adversity, child abuse, longitudinal studies, magnetic resonance imaging
Introduction
Childhood maltreatment (CM) is a common form of early life adversity that includes sexual, physical, and emotional abuse as well as physical and emotional neglect [1]. It is highly prevalent, ranging from 15% in individuals with no psychiatric disorders to over 50% in psychiatric patients [2]. CM is a public health concern and a risk factor for psychiatric disorders, such as depression, schizophrenia, and externalized disorders [3–5].
Alterations in grey matter volumes (GMV) in limbic and reward processing regions have been reported using cross-sectional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in healthy adolescents and adults reporting CM [6, 7]. However, both lower and higher regional GMV were reported, notably in the amygdala and hippocampus [8–13]. This heterogeneity could stem from variations in the age of the participants, the definition of CM used, the explored population (clinical or general), differences in psychiatric diagnoses, and whether the analysis focused on specific brain regions or investigated the whole brain. For instance, community-based adult studies using whole-brain analyses have described GMV alterations in regions from the extended limbic system, such as the insula, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and prefrontal cortex (PFC) [14].
In addition, whether these anatomical changes affect the brain reward system function remains to be explored. Functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) studies reported lower reward sensitivity in individuals reporting early-life adversity [15–17]. However, most studies focus on reward response in the context of substance use disorders, and studies in general-population adolescents are scarce. Only one report on reward response and CM in healthy adolescents [18] focused on emotional neglect, ignoring whether altered functional reward response could overlap in other types of maltreatment, such as sexual and emotional abuse, and physical abuse and neglect.
Cross-sectional studies, by design, do not allow for the investigation of whether the GMV changes in individuals reporting CM persist over time. Longitudinal neuroimaging studies in CM and limbic GMV in the general population are scarce. In young adults between ages 25 and 33, a stable effect of life adversity on the GMV of limbic regions has been reported, with increased and decreased volume changes depending on the type of adversity [19].
A longitudinal study reported amygdala developmental delays linked to CM and early adversities [20], whereas another study reported an increase in amygdala GMV in neglected females [21]. However, these longitudinal studies focused on hippocampal and amygdala GMV changes, without assessing other limbic and reward system structures [20, 21]. Thus, additional longitudinal studies with a larger adolescent sample and investigating an extended set of limbic regions are needed to provide further insight into the associations between CM and limbic GMV.
The overarching aim of the present study was to investigate both the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between CM and the structure and function of the extended limbic system in a large sample of community adolescents. This study addresses the following questions: (1) is CM associated with structural alterations in the extended limbic system? (2) is CM associated with altered functional response during reward processing? (3) Are these alterations persistent over time?
Thus, we compared GMV and task-based functional activation within the extended limbic system between adolescents with and without CM at ages 14 and 18. Additionally, in this longitudinal study, we conducted a repeated-measure analysis to investigate whether these potential differences associated with CM were stable between ages 14 and 18.
Methods
Available dataset
Neuroimaging and psycho-behavioural data from the IMAGEN consortium (https://imagen-project.org), a database including N = 2257 community adolescents from eight European sites recruited at age 14 with a follow-up at age 18, were used. A detailed description of recruitment and assessment procedures and exclusion and inclusion criteria has been published elsewhere [22]. IMAGEN data are available from a dedicated database: https://imagen2.cea.fr.
Participant selection
Participant groups were defined based on the CTQ scores, which N = 1359 participants had completed at age 18 (Figure S1, Supplementary Materials). A categorical approach based on validated thresholds for the five subscales was used [23]. Two groups were defined: participants were included in the maltreated group (CM+) if at least one of the five subscale scores indicated moderate to extreme levels of CM (N = 167), and participants were included in the non-maltreated group (CM-) if they had scores corresponding to none or minimal CM on all subscales (N = 790). Subjects presenting intermediate scores of CM were excluded (N = 402).
After preprocessing and quality control of structural neuroimaging data (described below) at ages 14 and 18, N = 634 participants were included in the GMV analyses and divided into a group of N = 529 CM- and a group of N = 105 CM+ adolescents.
From these participants, and after preprocessing and quality control of the task-based fMRI data (described below), N = 559 participants were included at age 14 (N = 471 CM, N = 88 CM+), and N = 357 were included at age 18 (N = 296 CM-, N = 61 CM+) for functional MRI analyses.
Assessment of childhood maltreatment, psychological characteristics, and puberty
Participants completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire short form (CTQ-SF; [23] at age 18. The IMAGEN dataset includes the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [24] and the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) [25]. Participants completed both SDQ and DAWBA at ages 14 and 18 (Supplementary Materials). Pubertal measures were based on self-report for feasibility reasons in a large sample and to minimize intrusion at age 14, with a computerized version of the Puberty Development Scale (PDS) on Psytools platform for online self-assessment (Delosis, London). The PDS scale has been validated for adolescent populations [26].
Ethical considerations
Local ethics research committees approved the IMAGEN study. Participants’ parents provided informed written consent, while written assent was obtained from the adolescents at age 14 and eventually signed written informed consent when over 18 years old (for more details, see Supplementary Materials).
MRI T1 and fMRI data acquisition
MRI scans were acquired at eight IMAGEN assessment sites with 3-Tesla scanners from various manufacturers (Siemens, Philips, General Electric, and Bruker) at ages 14 and 18. Imaging protocol comparability between the different scanners was ensured through optimal standardization. More information about quality control can be found elsewhere [22].
Neuroimaging measures of interest included voxel-based morphometry (voxel-wise GMV) and task-based functional activation during reward anticipation and feedback.
The acquisition and sequence parameters of the high-resolution T1-weighted three-dimensional structural images are detailed elsewhere [22].
A modified version of the well-established monetary incentive delay task (MID task), probing functional correlates of reward anticipation and feedback, was used with an fMRI event-related design [27, 28] (see Supplementary Materials).
MRI and fMRI data pre-processing
For all structural scans, spatial normalization onto the MNI template (Montreal Neurological Institute) and tissue segmentation in grey matter probability maps were performed using the CAT12 toolbox (CAT12.8.2) [29] of Standard Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM12, http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, UK) implemented in Matlab (https://fr.math-works.com/help/matlab/ref/edit.html). Automatic and visual quality control procedures for pre-processed structural and functional MRI were implemented (see Supplementary Materials).
Statistical analyses
Demographic and psychological characteristics
Descriptive analyses were conducted using JMP PRO 17.0.0. Student’s t-tests were carried out to evaluate differences in age, CTQ scores, total intracranial volume (TIV), and SDQ scores between CM+ and CM – participants. Pearson chi-squared tests were used to assess differences in sex and depression and PTSD diagnoses. Analyses were conducted at 14 and 18.
3D T1-weighted image analyses using voxel-based morphometry (VBM)
Structural MRI analyses were conducted using CAT12 (SPM) with a hypothesis-driven approach within a GM mask based on previous findings in the extended limbic system [30, 31], assembled with the Wake Forest University (WFU) PickAtlas [32] (see Supplementary Materials).
Voxel-wise analyses of GMV were conducted separately within the general linear model (GLM) framework for participants at ages 14 and 18. Between-group comparisons (CM- > CM+, CM- < CM+ contrasts) were investigated using the full factorial model for cross-sectional data in CAT12, with pubertal status, age, sex, scanning site, and TIV as confounding variables.
Lastly, longitudinal differences in GMV between age 14 and age 18 groups were investigated by performing a repeated-measure analysis with the “flexible factorial model” for longitudinal data in CAT12. We examined Time (age 14; age 18) × Group (CM+; CM-) interaction contrasts to test for between-group longitudinal differences.
Significant differences were identified using a height threshold set at p < 0.001 uncorrected and an extent threshold set at p < 0.05 family-wise error (FWE) corrected (k > 500 voxels). The height threshold p < 0.001 uncorrected was used to get a more complete report, while still controlling for multiple comparisons at the cluster level (Lieberman & Cunningham, 2009) [33].
Functional MRI data analyses
Functional MRI analyses were conducted using SPM12.
For each trial (e.g. reward feedback for a large win), pre-processed functional data were convolved using the SPM default haemodynamic response function (HRF). Movement parameters (three translations, three rotations) estimated during preprocessing were used as confounding variables.
All analyses were conducted within the grey matter reward system mask described above. Both reward anticipation and feedback were conditions of interest. As reward magnitude is known to induce brain activation in reward-related brain regions, we focused on the large reward, as was done in previous studies [27, 34]. Thus, contrasts of interest included anticipation of large win versus no win, and feedback of a large win versus no win.
A full factorial design, identical to the one described above in the structural analysis, was used to investigate functional activation between CM groups.
For both structural and functional analyses, the SPM extension AAL3 [35] and the XJView SPM Toolbox (http://www.alive-learn.net/xjview) were used to label significant clusters. For all comparisons, brain locations were reported in terms of Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates. The XJView SPM Toolbox was also used to create the figures.
Results
Sample characteristics
Sample characteristics and statistics are reported in Table 1. There were no significant differences in sex, age, and pubertal score between CM groups (Table 1). The CM+ group had significantly higher scores in all CTQ scores compared to the CM− group. No significant differences in sex distribution or age were detected between CM+ and CM−. The SDQ scales were significantly higher in the CM+ group, except for prosocial behaviour, which did not differ between CM groups. The CM+ group included a larger proportion of depressed participants at 14 and 18, and of participants with PTSD at 18, in comparison with the CM− group. There were no differences between CM groups in the proportion of participants with PTSD at 14. Finally, the CM+ group had a lower TIV at 14 and 18.
Table 1.
Sample characteristics and childhood maltreatment scores in N = 634 community adolescents
| CM– | CM+ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | mean (SD) | N | mean (SD) | p-values | |
| Total | 529 | – | 105 | – | – |
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 300 | – | 64 | – | ns |
| Male | 229 | – | 41 | – | ns |
| Age | |||||
| Baseline | 529 | 14.41 (0.41) | 105 | 14.43 (0.40) | ns |
| Follow-up | 529 | 19.02 (0.73) | 105 | 19.14 (0.80) | ns |
| Puberty measures | |||||
| PDS score age 14 | 529 | 2.94 (0.57) | 105 | 2.96 (0.56) | ns |
| CTQ scores | 529 | 105 | |||
| EA | – | 5.85 (1.03) | 62† | 11.27 (4.48) | <0.0001* |
| EN | – | 6.38 (1.38) | 37† | 12.35 (4.35) | <0.0001* |
| PA | – | 5.07 (0.31) | 31† | 6.92 (2.90) | <0.0001* |
| PN | – | 5.21 (0.50) | 50† | 8.06 (2.60) | <0.0001* |
| SA | – | 5 (0.00) | 30† | 7.07 (4.11) | <0.0001* |
| Total score | 27.51 (2.20) | 45.67 (11.12) | <0.0001* | ||
| DAWBA | |||||
| Depression 14 years-old | 5 | – | 4 | – | 0.0234* |
| Depression 18 years-old | 9 | – | 7 | – | 0.0029* |
| PTSD 14 years-old | 0 | – | 1 | – | ns |
| PTSD 18 years-old | 1 | – | 6 | – | <0.0001* |
| SDQ at age 14 | 529 | 104 | |||
| Emotional symptoms | – | 2.52 (1.99) | – | 2.97 (2.54) | 0.0458* |
| Conduct problems | – | 1.70 (1.32) | – | 2.20 (1.50) | 0.0010* |
| Hyperactivity/inattention | – | 3.72 (2.13) | – | 4.37 (2.07) | 0.0021* |
| Peer relationship problems | – | 1.60 (1.48) | – | 2.23 (1.92) | 0.0010* |
| Total difficulties score | – | 9.55 (4.40) | – | 11.77 (5.20) | <0.0001* |
| Prosocial behaviour | – | 7.88 (1.61) | – | 7.65 (1.56) | ns |
| SDQ at age 18 | 523 | 104 | |||
| Emotional symptoms | – | 2.56 (2.16) | – | 3.39 (2,51) | 0.0010* |
| Conduct problems | – | 1.49 (1.07) | – | 2.16 (1,28) | <0.0001* |
| Hyperactivity/inattention | – | 3.16 (2.03) | – | 3.61 (2,11) | 0.0250* |
| Peer relationship problems | – | 1.54 (1.29) | – | 2.20 (1,53) | <0.0001* |
| Total difficulties score | – | 8.75 (4.38) | – | 11.36 (5.26) | <0.0001* |
| Prosocial behaviour | – | 8.65 (1.44) | – | 8.45 (1.42) | ns |
| Brain volume | |||||
| TIV age 14 | 529 | 1473.20 (124.92) | 105 | 1440.34 (108.10) | 0.006* |
| TIV age 18 | 529 | 1484.25 (137.29) | 105 | 1450.72 (120.38) | 0.012* |
Note: *significant results (p < 0.05); †number of participants scoring above the threshold to consider CM. Group differences were tested using T-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables.
Abbreviations: CM- = no childhood maltreatment, CM+ = presence of childhood maltreatment, CTQ = childhood trauma questionnaire; EA = emotional abuse, EN = emotional neglect, PA = physical abuse, PN = physical neglect, SA = sexual abuse; DAWBA = Development and Well-Being Assessment; PDS = Puberty Development Scale; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; TIV = total intracranial volume.
Voxel-based morphometry results
Cross-sectional analyses
At age 14, a smaller GMV was found in the right posterior insula and left OFC, putamen, pregenual ACC, superior medial frontal cortex, subcallosal, inferior temporal lobe, and paracentral lobule in CM+ adolescents compared to CM− adolescents. We also report lower GMV in the left amygdala, medial OFC, parahippocampal gyrus, right rolandic operculum, pregenual ACC, OFC, bilateral middle cingulate, and superior temporal pole (Figure 1a and Table 2).
Figure 1.
Smaller limbic grey matter volumes in CM+ versus CM- adolescents at ages 14 and 18. This figure shows the GMVs that are smaller in CM+ compared to CM- adolescents: a) at age 14, b) at age 18, and c) the overlap (orange) at ages 14 (red) and 18 (yellow). The height threshold is set at p < 0.001 uncorrected and the extent threshold is set at p < 0.05 Family-Wise Error (FWE) corrected (k > 500 voxels). CM+ = self-report of childhood maltreatment; CM- = no childhood maltreatment; GMVs = grey matter volumes.
Table 2.
Comparison of grey matter volumes in reward-related regions between CM+ and CM- adolescents at ages 14 and 18 (N = 634)
| Region | Cluster level | Peak voxel | MINI coordinates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| k | p Value(FWE corr) | t Value | p Value uncorrected | x | y | z | |
| Regions where GMV are smaller in CM+ than in CM− participants at age 14 | |||||||
| Insula R | 1818 | 3.815e−04 | 5.06 | 2.814e−07 | 28 | −20 | 20 |
| Sup temp pole R | 4.21 | 1.264e−05 | 40 | −12 | −10 | ||
| Rolandic operculum R | 4.0 | 2.986e−05 | 40 | −18 | 22 | ||
| Med OFC L | 1681 | 5.995e−04 | 4.86 | 7.561e−07 | −20 | 18 | −14 |
| Amygdala L | 4.05 | 2.896e−05 | −30 | 2 | −20 | ||
| Sup temp pole /parahippocampal gyrus L | 4.00 | 3.513e−05 | −30 | 4 | −22 | ||
| Post OFC L | 3.92 | 4.830e−05 | −16 | 22 | −21 | ||
| Putamen L | 3.26 | 5.613e−04 | −22 | 18 | 2 | ||
| Pg ACC L | 4684 | 1.547e−07 | 4.76 | 1.188e−06 | 0 | 48 | 6 |
| Med sup frontal lobe L | 4.55 | 3.303e−06 | −12 | 51 | 12 | ||
| Olfactory /Accumbens bilat | 4.26 | 1.179e−05 | 0 | 14 | −16 | ||
| Pg ACC R | 3.86 | 6.147e−05 | 10 | 46 | 12 | ||
| Med OFC R | 3.25 | 6.078e−04 | 9 | 42 | −9 | ||
| Paracentral lobule L | 874 | 0.012 | 4.72 | 1.437e−06 | −2 | −28 | 50 |
| Cingulate mid L | 3.82 | 7.348e−05 | −8 | −27 | 38 | ||
| Cingulate mid R | 3.52 | 2.324e−04 | 8 | −22 | 38 | ||
| Insula L | 568 | 0.045 | 3.67 | 1.302e−04 | −42 | −9 | −46 |
| Regions where GMV are smaller in CM+ than in CM− participants at age 18 | |||||||
| Insula R | 2714 | 2.945e–05 | 5.17 | 1.610e−07 | 30 | −20 | 18 |
| Rolandic operculum R | 4.70 | 1.599e−06 | 39 | −18 | 22 | ||
| Sup temp pole/Parahippocampal gyrus R |
4.24
|
1.108e−05
|
45
|
0
|
−15
|
||
| Amygdala R | 4.27 | 1.505e−05 | 30 | 3 | −18 | ||
| Fusiform gyrus R | 3.86 | 5.599e−05 | 38 | −15 | −27 | ||
| OFC/putamen L | 3930 | 1.345e–06 | 5.02 | 3.458e−07 | −20 | 18 | −12 |
| Med sup frontal lobe R | 4.27 | 1.154e−05 | 8 | 48 | 2 | ||
| Rectus R | 4.23 | 1.330e−05 | 3 | 14 | −21 | ||
| Med OFC L | 4.13 | 2.062e−05 | −2 | 33 | −14 | ||
| Insula L | 4.02 | 3.332e−05 | −26 | 14 | −20 | ||
| Med OFC R | 3.98 | 3.833e−05 | 4 | 34 | −14 | ||
| Pg ACC R | 3.87 | 5.901e−05 | 18 | 45 | 12 | ||
| Rectus L | 3.51 | 2.441e−04 | −14 | 34 | −14 | ||
| Cingulate mid L | 1229 | 0.0026 | 4.57 | 2.905e−06 | −2 | −22 | 46 |
| Paracentral lobule L | 4.44 | 5.394e−06 | −2 | −28 | 50 | ||
| Cingulate mid R | 3.58 | 1.823e−04 | 8 | −22 | 38 | ||
Note: Height threshold at p < 0.001 uncorrected. p values in bold are statistically significant at p < 0.05 Family-Wise Error (FWE) corrected; Extent threshold at p < 0.05 (FWE) corrected (k > 500 voxels).
Abbreviations: CM+ = self-report of childhood maltreatment; CM- = no childhood maltreatment; k = cluster size, expressed in number of voxels; MNI = Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates in millimeters; R = right; L = left; bilat = bilateral; med = medial; mid = middle; pg = pregenual; sup = superior; temp = temporal; GMV = grey matter volume; MNI: Montreal Neurological Institute (coordinates in mm).
At age 18, a smaller GMV was detected in the right insula and left OFC, right rolandic operculum, amygdala, superior medial frontal cortex, gyrus rectus, and left-sided middle cingulate and paracentral lobule. In addition, we report lower GMV in the right-sided temporal superior gyrus, fusiform gyrus, OFC, pregenual ACC, middle cingulate, and left rectus. No significantly larger GMV was detected in CM+ compared to CM− at ages 14 and 18 (Figure 1b and Table 2).
Longitudinal analysis
There were no significant Time (14; 18) × Group (CM+; CM−) interactions, denoting the stability of GMV within CM groups across time and showing a persistence of the smaller regional GMV in CM+ compared to CM−.
Functional results
No significant difference between CM+ and CM− adolescents was detected during the MID task for feedback or anticipation of large (vs. no) win at ages 14 or 18.
Discussion
Persistent grey matter volume (GMV) alterations were detected in a longitudinal sample of adolescents reporting childhood maltreatment (CM). Indeed, the repeated-measure analysis highlighted smaller GMV in the extended limbic system in adolescents with CM (CM+) compared to those reporting no CM (CM−) at ages 14 and 18 (regional overlap in Figure 1.c). In addition, CM+ adolescents reported higher levels of a possible diagnosis of depression at 14 and 18 and of PTSD at 18 than CM− adolescents. They also reported higher emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and inattention, peer relationship problems, and lower prosocial behaviour.
These findings align with abundant cross-sectional studies in children and youth reporting smaller TIV, insula, and amygdala GMV associated with CM [7, 36–39]. These regions are involved in emotion awareness and regulation, fear and disgust processing, interoception, and self-recognition [40, 41]. Surprisingly, we found no effect of CM on hippocampal GMV, although other authors have reported alterations in this region related to CM [8, 10, 11]. However, smaller hippocampal GMV has mainly been described in PTSD [42, 43] and adults with CM [8]. As our sample comprised general population adolescents rather than patients or adults, this could account for the absence of such alterations. Indeed, although our sample includes a few participants with PTSD (Table 1), their number is not substantial enough to observe an effect on hippocampal GMV. Furthermore, although SDQ scores indicated a poorer emotional and behavioral profile in the CM+ group, the mean scores remained within the normal range [24], suggesting that while CM+ subjects exhibit a higher level of psychopathology, it may not be as severe as that observed in clinical samples. In addition, our results on hippocampal GMV align with other longitudinal studies involving community adolescents reporting CM [20, 21].
Beyond the results from previous longitudinal studies, we found a stable, smaller GMV in the medial cingulate cortex, left OFC, and left paracentral lobule. Smaller GMV in these regions has been reported in cross-sectional studies of adolescents and adults with CM [43–45]. Nevertheless, it is the first time that longitudinal GMV alterations associated with CM can be reported in these regions.
In addition to the persistent alterations in limbic GMV associated with CM, the analyses at age 14 retrieved smaller GMV in the CM+ group compared to the CM− within the left pregenual ACC and inferior temporal gyrus. In the same line, analyses at age 18 detected smaller GMV in the operculum, gyrus rectus, and middle cingulate cortex. Cross-sectional studies have previously reported alterations associated with CM in these regions [45–48] except for the gyrus rectus. Moreover, the longitudinal analysis showed no differences between age groups, suggesting that the same alterations were present at ages 14 and 18.
Surprisingly, the functional analysis of the reward system during the MID task did not retrieve significant differences in reward response between CM+ and CM− adolescents in the large-win vs no-win contrast, which taps into the sensitivity to reward. Still, the core regions activated by the MID task did not match those where smaller GMV was detected herein. In addition, in this sample with low psychopathology rates, GMV alterations associated with CM do not affect neuro-functional processing during the MID task. We cannot exclude that significant functional impairments only occur in adolescents with CM and marked psychopathology. For instance, reward sensitivity was assessed in a sample of depressed adolescents within the IMAGEN cohort, and OFC functional alterations were associated with depressive symptomatology [49].
Overall, the aforementioned structural findings align with previous literature and add further evidence that limbic volumetric alterations associated with CM are enduring in adolescents. Indeed, cross-sectional GMV alterations have been consistently reported in children, adolescents, and adults [6–8, 12, 36, 48]. Even more so, most regions found altered in this study have been associated with depression [50, 51], anhedonia [52], and PTSD [53]. Therefore, we hypothesize that these persistent brain alterations could underlie the well-established association between CM and severe psychiatric disorders. Consequently, the present findings insist on the need for research on targeted preventive interventions for adolescents who have experienced CM [4, 54, 55].
Strengths and limitations
This is the largest longitudinal study on GMV alterations in adolescents reporting CM to date. It includes general-population adolescents from eight sites across Europe, which improves generalizability and replicability but could also increase heterogeneity within the sample.
There are several limitations to this study. First, it is based on a declarative assessment of CM, which could be biased by the subjective memory of events. However, retrospective assessments were performed with commonly used and validated instruments to measure CM [56]. In addition, CTQ scores are generally associated with an underestimation rather than an overestimation of CM. Selecting participants with scores above the threshold for a severe to extreme level of at least one type of CM may reduce bias by preventing the misclassification of maltreated individuals. Another limitation is that the CTQ is retrospective. Retrospective measures of CM were found to be less predictive of structural alterations than prospective measures [19, 57]. In addition, due to the nature of the retrospective data, we could establish no causal effect of CM on GMV.
Second, the timing and duration of CM exposure could not be measured in this study. Brain developmental pace varies across different regions, highlighting the importance of CM timing in influencing developmental outcomes [58, 59]. Accordingly, the timing of CM exposure can shape both the alterations in GMV and the type of psychiatric disorder that emerges later on [60, 61].
Third, this study could not determine whether the smaller GMVs associated with CM are present beyond the studied ages. However, another longitudinal study described persistent smaller GMVs associated with early adversity at ages 25 and 33, and replicated their results in a sample of individuals aged 22 [19]. This suggests that GMV alterations associated with early adversity persist into adulthood.
Lastly, this study could not distinguish between types of CM due to the CM+ sample size. Studies suggest that GMV alterations may vary depending on the specific types of CM reported. Consequently, not differentiating between these types could result in more heterogeneous samples and lower the statistical power of the analyses. Nonetheless, different types of CM often co-occur and can be challenging to disentangle [62].
In conclusion, adding to prior reports in youth and adults, this study highlights a persistent smaller GMV in the extended limbic system in adolescents reporting childhood maltreatment. In the existing literature, structural alterations in these regions have been associated with vulnerability to affective disorders. Whether the present findings could be mitigated through psychological and pharmacological interventions remains at stake.
Supporting information
Ruiz-Fernandez et al. supplementary material
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10111.
Financial support
This work received support from the following sources: the European Union–funded FP6 Integrated Project IMAGEN (Reinforcement-related behavior in normal brain function and psychopathology) (LSHM-CT − 2007-037286); the Eranet Neuron (Grant ANR-18-NEUR00002–01– ADORe); Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant ANR-12-SAMA-0004 -GeBra); Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux-de-Paris and INSERM (interface grant); Paris Descartes University (Grant collaborative-project-2010); Paris Sud University (Grant IDEX-2012); Fondation de l’Avenir (Grant AP-RM-17-013); Fondation de France (Grant 00081242); Fédération pour la Recherche sur le Cerveau, and Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (Grants DPA20140629802 and ADOLIMIS DPP20151033945); the Ile-de-France Region (Action 16700103 -grant to QIM– VEAVE, n°23002745–23002747); the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, and the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF grants 01GS08152; 01EV0711; Forschungsnetz AERIAL 01EE1406A, 01EE1406B; Forschungsnetz IMAC- Mind 01GL1745B); the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG project numbers 186318919[FOR 1617], 178833530 [SFB 940], 386691645 [NE 1383/14–1], 4022170461 [TRR 265], 45425598 [IRTG 2773]); the Medical Research Foundation and Medical Research Council (grants MR/R00465X/1 and MR/S020306/1). The INSERM (PI: David Cohen); and Strasbourg University and SATT CONECTUS, provided sponsorship (PI: Jean-Luc Martinot).
Competing interests
TB served in an advisory or consultancy role for ADHS digital, Infectopharm, Lundbeck, Medice, Neurim Pharmaceuticals, Oberberg GmbH, Roche, and Takeda. He received conference support or speaker’s fee by Medice and Takeda. He has been involved in clinical trials conducted by Shire & Viforpharma. He received royalties from Hogrefe, Kohlhammer, CIP Medien, Oxford University Press. He has been involved in clinical trials conducted by Shire & Viforpharma. GB has received honoraria from General Electric Healthcare for teaching on scanner programming courses. LP served in an advisory or consultancy role for Roche and Viforpharm and received speaker’s fee by Shire. She received royalties from Hogrefe, Kohlhammer and Schattauer. The present work is unrelated to the above grants and relationships. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.
References
- [1].Cicchetti D, Toth SL. Child maltreatment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:409–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Struck N, Krug A, Yuksel D, Stein F, Schmitt S, Meller T, et al. Childhood maltreatment and adult mental disorders – the prevalence of different types of maltreatment and associations with age of onset and severity of symptoms. Psychiatry Res. 2020;293:113398. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178120315316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Heleniak C, Jenness JL, Stoep AV, McCauley E, McLaughlin KA. Childhood maltreatment exposure and disruptions in emotion regulation: a Transdiagnostic pathway to adolescent internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Cogn Ther Res. 2016;40(3):394–415. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5042349/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Teicher MH, Gordon JB, Nemeroff CB. Recognizing the importance of childhood maltreatment as a critical factor in psychiatric diagnoses, treatment, research, prevention, and education. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27(3):1331–8. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01367-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Warrier V, Kwong ASF, Luo M, Dalvie S, Croft J, Sallis HM, et al. Gene-environment correlations and causal effects of childhood maltreatment on physical and mental health: a genetically informed approach. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(5):373–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Cohen RA, Grieve S, Hoth KF, Paul RH, Sweet L, Tate D, et al. Early life stress and morphometry of the adult anterior cingulate cortex and caudate nuclei. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59(10):975–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Edmiston EE, Wang F, Mazure CM, Guiney J, Sinha R, Mayes LC, et al. Corticostriatal-limbic Gray matter morphology in adolescents with self-reported exposure to childhood maltreatment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(12):1069–77. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3607102/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Hakamata Y, Suzuki Y, Kobashikawa H, Hori H. Neurobiology of early life adversity: a systematic review of meta-analyses towards an integrative account of its neurobiological trajectories to mental disorders. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2022;65:100994. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302222000176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Lim L, Radua J, Rubia K. Gray matter abnormalities in childhood maltreatment: a voxel-wise meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171(8):854–63. Available from: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Paquola C, Bennett MR, Lagopoulos J. Understanding heterogeneity in grey matter research of adults with childhood maltreatment—a meta-analysis and review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;69:299–312. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763415302888 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Pollok TM, Kaiser A, Kraaijenvanger EJ, Monninger M, Brandeis D, Banaschewski T, et al. Neurostructural traces of early life adversities: a meta-analysis exploring age- and adversity-specific effects. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;135:104589. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013474/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Teicher MH, Samson JA, Anderson CM, Ohashi K. The effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure, function and connectivity. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016;17(10):652–66. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Teicher MH, Samson JA. Annual research review: enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016;57(3):241–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Ansell EB, Rando K, Tuit K, Guarnaccia J, Sinha R. Cumulative adversity and smaller gray matter volume in medial prefrontal, anterior cingulate, and insula regions. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(1):57–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Herzberg MP, Gunnar MR. Early life stress and brain function: activity and connectivity associated with processing emotion and reward. NeuroImage. 2020;209:116493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Méndez Leal AS, Silvers JA. Neurobiological markers of resilience to early-life adversity during adolescence. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2021;6(2):238–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Novick AM, Levandowski ML, Laumann LE, Philip NS, Price LH, Tyrka AR. The effects of early life stress on reward processing. J Psychiatr Res. 2018;101:80–103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Hanson JL, Hariri AR, Williamson DE. Blunted ventral striatum development in adolescence reflects emotional neglect and predicts depressive symptoms. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;78(9):598–605. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632231500431X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Holz NE, Zabihi M, Kia SM, Monninger M, Aggensteiner PM, Siehl S, et al. A stable and replicable neural signature of lifespan adversity in the adult brain. Nat Neurosci. 2023;26(9):1603–12. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01410-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Whittle S, Dennison M, Vijayakumar N, Simmons JG, Yücel M, Lubman DI, et al. Childhood maltreatment and psychopathology affect brain development during adolescence. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52(9):940–952, e1. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089085671300405X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Rakesh D, Elzeiny R, Vijayakumar N, Whittle S. A longitudinal study of childhood maltreatment, subcortical development, and subcortico-cortical structural maturational coupling from early to late adolescence. Psychol Med. 2023;53(16):7525–36. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/longitudinal-study-of-childhood-maltreatment-subcortical-development-and-subcorticocortical-structural-maturational-coupling-from-early-to-late-adolescence/3D603F5740E5C4A8DA1E22C635E793DB [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Schumann G, Loth E, Banaschewski T, Barbot A, Barker G, Büchel C, et al. The IMAGEN study: reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(12):1128–39. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/mp20104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Bernstein DP, Stein JA, Newcomb MD, Walker E, Pogge D, Ahluvalia T, et al. Development and validation of a brief screening version of the childhood trauma questionnaire. Child Abuse Negl. 2003;27(2):169–90. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213402005410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38(5):581–6. Available from: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Goodman R, Ford T, Richards H, Gatward R, Meltzer H. The development and well-being assessment: description and initial validation of an integrated assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2000;41(5):645–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Petersen AC. Adolescent development. Annu Rev Psychol. 1988;39:583–607. Available from: 10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.003055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Cao Z, Bennett M, Orr C, Icke I, Banaschewski T, Barker GJ, et al. Mapping adolescent reward anticipation, receipt, and prediction error during the monetary incentive delay task. Hum Brain Mapp. 2018;40(1):262–83. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6865381/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Knutson B, Westdorp A, Kaiser E, Hommer D. FMRI visualization of brain activity during a monetary incentive delay task. NeuroImage. 2000;12(1):20–7. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811900905937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Gaser C, Dahnke R, Thompson PM, Kurth F, Luders E, Initiative ADN. CAT: A Computational Anatomy Toolbox for the Analysis of Structural MRI Data. bioRxiv; 2023. p. 2022.06.11.495736. Available from: 10.1101/2022.06.11.495736v2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- [30].Haber SN, Knutson B. The reward circuit: linking primate anatomy and human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35(1):4–26. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2009129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Stringaris A, Vidal-Ribas Belil P, Artiges E, Lemaitre H, Gollier-Briant F, Wolke S, et al. The brain’s response to reward anticipation and depression in adolescence: dimensionality, specificity, and longitudinal predictions in a community-based sample. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(12):1215–23. Available from: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14101298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Maldjian JA, Laurienti PJ, Kraft RA, Burdette JH. An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage. 2003;19(3):1233–9. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811903001691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [33].Lieberman MD, Cunningham WA. Type I and Type II error concerns in fMRI research: re-balancing the scale. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci (SCAN). 2009;4(4):423–428. Available from: 10.1093/scan/nsp052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Schneider S, Peters J, Bromberg U, Brassen S, Miedl SF, Banaschewski T, et al. Risk taking and the adolescent reward system: a potential common link to substance abuse. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(1):39–46. Available from: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11030489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [35].Rolls ET, Huang CC, Lin CP, Feng J, Joliot M. Automated anatomical labelling atlas 3. NeuroImage. 2020;206:116189. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919307803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [36].Jeong HJ, Durham EL, Moore TM, Dupont RM, McDowell M, Cardenas-Iniguez C, et al. The association between latent trauma and brain structure in children. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11:240. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068725/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [37].Kirsch DE, Tretyak V, Radpour S, Weber WA, Nemeroff CB, Fromme K, et al. Childhood maltreatment, prefrontal-paralimbic gray matter volume, and substance use in young adults and interactions with risk for bipolar disorder. Sci Rep. 2021;11:123. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7794246/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [38].Lim L, Khor CC. Examining the common and specific grey matter abnormalities in childhood maltreatment and peer victimisation. BJPsych Open. 2022;8(4):e132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [39].McLaughlin KA, Sheridan MA, Gold AL, Duys A, Lambert HK, Peverill M, et al. Maltreatment exposure, brain structure, and fear conditioning in children and adolescents. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(8):1956–64. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4908632/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [40].(Bud) Craig AD. How do you feel — now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(1):59–70. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [41].Calder AJ, Lawrence AD, Young AW. Neuropsychology of fear and loathing. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2(5):352–63. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/35072584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [42].Ahmed-Leitao F, Spies G, van den Heuvel L, Seedat S. Hippocampal and amygdala volumes in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder secondary to childhood abuse or maltreatment: a systematic review. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. 2016;256:33–43. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925492715301001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [43].De Brito SA, Viding E, Sebastian CL, Kelly PA, Mechelli A, Maris H, et al. Reduced orbitofrontal and temporal grey matter in a community sample of maltreated children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(1):105–12. Available from: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02597.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [44].Clausen AN, Aupperle RL, Yeh HW, Waller D, Payne J, Kuplicki R, et al. Machine learning analysis of the relationships between Gray matter volume and childhood trauma in a Transdiagnostic community-based sample. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2019;4(8):734–42. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451902219300679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [45].Monteleone AM, Monteleone P, Esposito F, Prinster A, Ruzzi V, Canna A, et al. The effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure in adults with eating disorders. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2019;20(4):301–9. Available from: 10.1080/15622975.2017.1395071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [46].Kelly PA, Viding E, Wallace GL, Schaer M, De Brito SA, Robustelli B, et al. Cortical thickness, Surface Area, and Gyrification Abnormalities in Children Exposed to Maltreatment: Neural Markers of Vulnerability?, Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74(11):845–52. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322313006252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [47].Li L, Jiang J, Wu B, Lin J, Roberts N, Sweeney JAet al. Distinct gray matter abnormalities in children/adolescents and adults with history of childhood maltreatment. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023;153:105376. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763423003457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [48].Yang W, Jin S, Duan W, Yu H, Ping L, Shen Z, et al. The effects of childhood maltreatment on cortical thickness and gray matter volume: a coordinate-based meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2023;53(5):1681–99. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/effects-of-childhood-maltreatment-on-cortical-thickness-and-gray-matter-volume-a-coordinatebased-metaanalysis/3FEBA9886ED56297D11B3DAE179E1884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [49].Xie C, Jia T, Rolls ET, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ, Zhang J, et al. Reward versus nonreward sensitivity of the medial versus lateral orbitofrontal cortex relates to the severity of depressive symptoms. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2021;6(3):259–69. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451902220302548 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [50].McKay MT, Cannon M, Chambers D, Conroy RM, Coughlan H, Dodd P, et al. Childhood trauma and adult mental disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2021;143(3):189–205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [51].Schmaal L, Hibar DP, Sämann PG, Hall GB, Baune BT, Jahanshad N, et al. Cortical abnormalities in adults and adolescents with major depression based on brain scans from 20 cohorts worldwide in the ENIGMA major depressive disorder working group. Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22(6):900–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [52].Zhu X, Ward J, Cullen B, Lyall DM, Strawbridge RJ, Lyall LM, et al. Phenotypic and genetic associations between anhedonia and brain structure in UK biobank. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11:395. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8289859/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [53].Xiao S, Yang Z, Su T, Gong J, Huang L, Wang Y. Functional and structural brain abnormalities in posttraumatic stress disorder: a multimodal meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;155:153–62. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395622004630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [54].Hardcastle KA, Bellis MA, Hughes K, Sethi D. Implementing child maltreatment prevention programmes: what the experts say. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2015. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/326346
- [55].CDC. Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention. 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/child-abuse-neglect/prevention/index.html
- [56].Gur RE, Moore TM, Rosen AFG, Barzilay R, Roalf DR, Calkins ME, et al. Burden of environmental adversity associated with psychopathology, maturation, and brain behavior parameters in youths. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(9):966–75. Available from: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [57].Gehred MZ, Knodt AR, Ambler A, Bourassa KJ, Danese A, Elliott ML, et al. Long-term neural embedding of childhood adversity in a population-representative birth cohort followed for 5 decades. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;90(3):182–93. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322321011094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [58].Brouwer RM, Klein M, Grasby KL, Schnack HG, Jahanshad N, Teeuw J, et al. Genetic variants associated with longitudinal changes in brain structure across the lifespan. Nat Neurosci. 2022;25(4):421–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [59].Fox SE, Levitt P, Nelson CA. How the timing and quality of early experiences influence the development of brain architecture. Child Dev. 2010;81(1):28–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [60].Kaplow JB, Widom CS. Age of onset of child maltreatment predicts long-term mental health outcomes. J Abnorm Psychol. 2007;116(1):176–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [61].Luby JL, Barch D, Whalen D, Tillman R, Belden A. Association between early life adversity and risk for poor emotional and physical health in adolescence: a putative mechanistic neurodevelopmental pathway. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(12):1168–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [62].Lim L, Hart H, Mehta M, Worker A, Simmons A, Mirza K, et al. Grey matter volume and thickness abnormalities in young people with a history of childhood abuse. Psychol Med. 2018;48(6):1034–46. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/grey-matter-volume-and-thickness-abnormalities-in-young-people-with-a-history-of-childhood-abuse/B59F4B8AF466498799C964596E95557E [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Ruiz-Fernandez et al. supplementary material

