Association Between Socioeconomic Status and In Utero Fetal Brain Development | Radiology | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Table 1.  Demographic Characteristics of Mothers
Demographic Characteristics of Mothers
Table 2.  Participant Education and Occupation Levels
Participant Education and Occupation Levels
Table 3.  Associations Between Parental Socioeconomic Measures and Fetal Brain Volumesa
Associations Between Parental Socioeconomic Measures and Fetal Brain Volumesa
Table 4.  Associations Between Maternal Socioeconomic Measures and Brain Lobe Volumes and Cortical Featuresa
Associations Between Maternal Socioeconomic Measures and Brain Lobe Volumes and Cortical Featuresa
Table 5.  Associations Between Paternal Socioeconomic Measures and Brain Lobe Volumes and Cortical Featuresa
Associations Between Paternal Socioeconomic Measures and Brain Lobe Volumes and Cortical Featuresa
Supplement.

eTable 1. Spearman Correlation Coefficients Among Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 2. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans Obtained for Each Gestational Age Range

eTable 3. Brain Growth Rate vs Gestational Age Between First and Second Scans

eTable 4. Distress Measures

eTable 5. Associations Between Maternal Distress Measures and Parental Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 6. Associations Between Fetal Brain Volume and Cortical Features and Parental Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 7. β Coefficients of Gestational Age for Associations Between Fetal Brain Volume and Parental Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 8. β Coefficients of Gestational Age for Associations Between Brain Lobe Volume and Cortical Features and Maternal Socioeconomic Measures

eTable 9. β Coefficients of Gestational Age for Associations Between Brain Lobe Volume and Cortical Features and Paternal Socioeconomic Measures

eTable 10. β Coefficients of Fetal Sex for Associations Between Fetal Brain Volume and Parental Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 11. β Coefficients of Fetal Sex for Associations Between Brain Lobe Volume and Cortical Features and Maternal Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 12. β Coefficients of Fetal Sex for Associations Between Brain Lobe Volume and Cortical Features and Paternal Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 13. Associations Between Fetal Brain Volumes and Parental Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 14. Associations Between Brain Lobe Volumes and Cortical Features and Maternal Socioeconomic Status Measures

eTable 15. Associations Between Brain Lobe Volume and Cortical Features and Paternal Socioeconomic Status Measures

eFigure 1. Fetal Brain Magnetic Resonance Axial Plane Images and Reconstructed White Matter Surface at Different Gestational Ages

eFigure 2. Brain Tissue Segmentation

eFigure 3. Brain Parcellation

eFigure 4. Cortical Folding

eFigure 5. Subject Recruitment Flowchart

eFigure 6. Brain Tissue Volume vs Socioeconomic Status Score

eFigure 7. Brain Tissue Volume vs Gestational Age

eFigure 8. Cerebral Cortical Features vs Socioeconomic Status Score

eFigure 9. Cerebral Cortical Features vs Gestational Age

1.
Hurt  H, Betancourt  LM.  Effect of socioeconomic status disparity on child language and neural outcome: how early is early?   Pediatr Res. 2016;79(1-2):148-158. doi:10.1038/pr.2015.202PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Raizada  RDS, Richards  TL, Meltzoff  A, Kuhl  PK.  Socioeconomic status predicts hemispheric specialisation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in young children.   Neuroimage. 2008;40(3):1392-1401. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.021PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Noble  KG, Houston  SM, Brito  NH,  et al.  Family income, parental education and brain structure in children and adolescents.   Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(5):773-778. doi:10.1038/nn.3983PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Hackman  DA, Farah  MJ, Meaney  MJ.  Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research.   Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11(9):651-659. doi:10.1038/nrn2897PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Bradley  RH, Corwyn  RF.  Socioeconomic status and child development.   Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53:371-399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
McLoyd  VC.  Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.   Am Psychol. 1998;53(2):185-204. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Eckert  MA, Lombardino  LJ, Leonard  CM.  Planar asymmetry tips the phonological playground and environment raises the bar.   Child Dev. 2001;72(4):988-1002. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00330PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Hanson  JL, Hair  N, Shen  DG,  et al.  Family poverty affects the rate of human infant brain growth.   PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e80954. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080954PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Betancourt  LM, Avants  B, Farah  MJ,  et al.  Effect of socioeconomic status (SES) disparity on neural development in female African-American infants at age 1 month.   Dev Sci. 2016;19(6):947-956. doi:10.1111/desc.12344PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Jednoróg  K, Altarelli  I, Monzalvo  K,  et al.  The influence of socioeconomic status on children’s brain structure.   PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42486. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042486PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Luby  J, Belden  A, Botteron  K,  et al.  The effects of poverty on childhood brain development: the mediating effect of caregiving and stressful life events.   JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(12):1135-1142. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Hanson  JL, Chandra  A, Wolfe  BL, Pollak  SD.  Association between income and the hippocampus.   PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e18712. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018712PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Lange  N, Froimowitz  MP, Bigler  ED, Lainhart  JE; Brain Development Cooperative Group.  Associations between IQ, total and regional brain volumes, and demography in a large normative sample of healthy children and adolescents.   Dev Neuropsychol. 2010;35(3):296-317. doi:10.1080/87565641003696833PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Brain Development Cooperative Group.  Total and regional brain volumes in a population-based normative sample from 4 to 18 years: the NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development.   Cereb Cortex. 2012;22(1):1-12. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Lawson  GM, Duda  JT, Avants  BB, Wu  J, Farah  MJ.  Associations between children’s socioeconomic status and prefrontal cortical thickness.   Dev Sci. 2013;16(5):641-652. doi:10.1111/desc.12096PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Noble  KG, Houston  SM, Kan  E, Sowell  ER.  Neural correlates of socioeconomic status in the developing human brain.   Dev Sci. 2012;15(4):516-527. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01147.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Noble  KG, McCandliss  BD, Farah  MJ.  Socioeconomic gradients predict individual differences in neurocognitive abilities.   Dev Sci. 2007;10(4):464-480. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00600.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Ritsher  JE, Warner  V, Johnson  JG, Dohrenwend  BP.  Inter-generational longitudinal study of social class and depression: a test of social causation and social selection models.   Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2001;40:s84-s90. doi:10.1192/bjp.178.40.s84PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kainz  B, Steinberger  M, Wein  W,  et al.  Fast volume reconstruction from motion corrupted stacks of 2D slices.   IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015;34(9):1901-1913. doi:10.1109/TMI.2015.2415453PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Makropoulos  A, Gousias  IS, Ledig  C,  et al.  Automatic whole brain MRI segmentation of the developing neonatal brain.   IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33(9):1818-1831. doi:10.1109/TMI.2014.2322280PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Makropoulos  A, Aljabar  P, Wright  R,  et al.  Regional growth and atlasing of the developing human brain.   Neuroimage. 2016;125:456-478. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.047PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Yushkevich  PA, Piven  J, Hazlett  HC,  et al.  User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability.   Neuroimage. 2006;31(3):1116-1128. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Shattuck  DW, Leahy  RM.  BrainSuite: an automated cortical surface identification tool.   Med Image Anal. 2002;6(2):129-142. doi:10.1016/S1361-8415(02)00054-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Shimony  JS, Smyser  CD, Wideman  G,  et al.  Comparison of cortical folding measures for evaluation of developing human brain.   Neuroimage. 2016;125:780-790. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Rodriguez-Carranza  CE, Mukherjee  P, Vigneron  D, Barkovich  J, Studholme  C.  A framework for in vivo quantification of regional brain folding in premature neonates.   Neuroimage. 2008;41(2):462-478. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Mietchen  D, Gaser  C.  Computational morphometry for detecting changes in brain structure due to development, aging, learning, disease and evolution.   Front Neuroinform. 2009;3:25. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.025.2009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Kochunov  P, Rogers  W, Mangin  J-F, Lancaster  J.  A library of cortical morphology analysis tools to study development, aging and genetics of cerebral cortex.   Neuroinformatics. 2012;10(1):81-96. doi:10.1007/s12021-011-9127-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Engelhardt  E, Inder  TE, Alexopoulos  D,  et al.  Regional impairments of cortical folding in premature infants.   Ann Neurol. 2015;77(1):154-162. doi:10.1002/ana.24313PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Moeskops  P, Benders  MJNL, Kersbergen  KJ,  et al.  Development of cortical morphology evaluated with longitudinal MR brain images of preterm infants.   PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131552PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Lefèvre  J, Germanaud  D, Dubois  J,  et al.  Are developmental trajectories of cortical folding comparable between cross-sectional datasets of fetuses and preterm newborns?   Cereb Cortex. 2016;26(7):3023-3035. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv123PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Leijser  LM, Siddiqi  A, Miller  SP.  Imaging evidence of the effect of socio-economic status on brain structure and development.   Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2018;27:26-34. doi:10.1016/j.spen.2018.03.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Clouchoux  C, Kudelski  D, Gholipour  A,  et al.  Quantitative in vivo MRI measurement of cortical development in the fetus.   Brain Struct Funct. 2012;217(1):127-139. doi:10.1007/s00429-011-0325-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Dubois  J, Benders  M, Cachia  A,  et al.  Mapping the early cortical folding process in the preterm newborn brain.   Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(6):1444-1454. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhm180PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Hill  J, Dierker  D, Neil  J,  et al.  A surface-based analysis of hemispheric asymmetries and folding of cerebral cortex in term-born human infants.   J Neurosci. 2010;30(6):2268-2276. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4682-09.2010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Van Essen  DC.  A Population-Average, Landmark- and Surface-based (PALS) atlas of human cerebral cortex.   Neuroimage. 2005;28(3):635-662. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Li  G, Wang  L, Shi  F,  et al.  Mapping longitudinal development of local cortical gyrification in infants from birth to 2 years of age.   J Neurosci. 2014;34(12):4228-4238. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3976-13.2014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Schaer  M, Cuadra  MB, Tamarit  L, Lazeyras  F, Eliez  S, Thiran  J-P.  A surface-based approach to quantify local cortical gyrification.   IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2008;27(2):161-170. doi:10.1109/TMI.2007.903576PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Tosun  D, Siddarth  P, Levitt  J, Caplan  R.  Cortical thickness and sulcal depth: insights on development and psychopathology in paediatric epilepsy.   BJPsych Open. 2015;1(2):129-135. doi:10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.001719PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Pienaar  R, Fischl  B, Caviness  V, Makris  N, Grant  PE.  A methodology for analyzing curvature in the developing brain from preterm to adult.   Int J Imaging Syst Technol. 2008;18(1):42-68. doi:10.1002/ima.20138PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Wu  Y, Lu  Y-C, Jacobs  M,  et al.  Association of prenatal maternal psychological distress with fetal brain growth, metabolism, and cortical maturation.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1919940. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19940PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Garcia  TP, Marder  K.  Statistical approaches to longitudinal data analysis in neurodegenerative diseases: Huntington’s disease as a model.   Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2017;17(2):14. doi:10.1007/s11910-017-0723-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Winter  B. A very basic tutorial for performing linear mixed effects analyses: tutorial 2. Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Education and Synthesis. Accessed February 18, 2021. doi:10.25334/Q4W716
43.
Daniels  MJ, Zhao  YD.  Modelling the random effects covariance matrix in longitudinal data.   Stat Med. 2003;22(10):1631-1647. doi:10.1002/sim.1470PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Andescavage  N, duPlessis  A, Metzler  M,  et al.  In vivo assessment of placental and brain volumes in growth-restricted fetuses with and without fetal Doppler changes using quantitative 3D MRI.   J Perinatol. 2017;37(12):1278-1284. doi:10.1038/jp.2017.129PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Hair  NL, Hanson  JL, Wolfe  BL, Pollak  SD.  Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement.   JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(9):822-829. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Farah  MJ.  The neuroscience of socioeconomic status: correlates, causes, and consequences.   Neuron. 2017;96(1):56-71. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.08.034PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Yang  T, Yang  XY, Yu  L, Cottrell  RR, Jiang  S.  Individual and regional association between socioeconomic status and uncertainty stress, and life stress: a representative nationwide study of China.   Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):118. doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0618-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Sverke  M, Hellgren  J, Näswall  K.  No security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences.   J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7(3):242-264. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Heaney  CA, Israel  BA, House  JS.  Chronic job insecurity among automobile workers: effects on job satisfaction and health.   Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(10):1431-1437. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90281-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Wanberg  CR.  The individual experience of unemployment.   Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:369-396. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Barbeau  EM, Krieger  N, Soobader  M-J.  Working class matters: socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender, and smoking in NHIS 2000.   Am J Public Health. 2004;94(2):269-278. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.2.269PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Sorensen  G, Barbeau  E, Hunt  MK, Emmons  K.  Reducing social disparities in tobacco use: a social-contextual model for reducing tobacco use among blue-collar workers.   Am J Public Health. 2004;94(2):230-239. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.2.230PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Landsbergis  PA, Schnall  PL, Pickering  TG, Warren  K, Schwartz  JE.  Lower socioeconomic status among men in relation to the association between job strain and blood pressure.   Scand J Work Environ Health. 2003;29(3):206-215. doi:10.5271/sjweh.723PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Ham  DC, Przybeck  T, Strickland  JR, Luke  DA, Bierut  LJ, Evanoff  BA.  Occupation and workplace policies predict smoking behaviors: analysis of national data from the current population survey.   J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(11):1337-1345. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182337778PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Neiss  M, Rowe  DC.  Parental education and child’s verbal IQ in adoptive and biological families in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.   Behav Genet. 2000;30(6):487-495. doi:10.1023/A:1010254918997PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
MacKinnon  DP, Fairchild  AJ, Fritz  MS.  Mediation analysis.   Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:593-614. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Li  Q, Zhao  Y, Chen  Z,  et al.  Meta-analysis of cortical thickness abnormalities in medication-free patients with major depressive disorder.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2020;45(4):703-712. doi:10.1038/s41386-019-0563-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Dowlati  Y, Herrmann  N, Swardfager  W,  et al.  A meta-analysis of cytokines in major depression.   Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67(5):446-457. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.09.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Qiu  L, Lui  S, Kuang  W,  et al.  Regional increases of cortical thickness in untreated, first-episode major depressive disorder.   Transl Psychiatry. 2014;4:e378. doi:10.1038/tp.2014.18PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Abé  C, Liberg  B, Song  J,  et al.  Longitudinal cortical thickness changes in bipolar disorder and the relationship to genetic risk, mania, and lithium use.   Biol Psychiatry. 2020;87(3):271-281. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.08.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Coussons-Read  ME, Okun  ML, Nettles  CD.  Psychosocial stress increases inflammatory markers and alters cytokine production across pregnancy.   Brain Behav Immun. 2007;21(3):343-350. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2006.08.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Hantsoo  L, Kornfield  S, Anguera  MC, Epperson  CN.  Inflammation: a proposed intermediary between maternal stress and offspring neuropsychiatric risk.   Biol Psychiatry. 2019;85(2):97-106. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.08.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Entringer  S, Kumsta  R, Nelson  EL, Hellhammer  DH, Wadhwa  PD, Wüst  S.  Influence of prenatal psychosocial stress on cytokine production in adult women.   Dev Psychobiol. 2008;50(6):579-587. doi:10.1002/dev.20316PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Falkai  P, Honer  WG, Kamer  T,  et al.  Disturbed frontal gyrification within families affected with schizophrenia.   J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41(10):805-813. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.07.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Harris  JM, Whalley  H, Yates  S, Miller  P, Johnstone  EC, Lawrie  SM.  Abnormal cortical folding in high-risk individuals: a predictor of the development of schizophrenia?   Biol Psychiatry. 2004;56(3):182-189. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.04.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Harris  JM, Yates  S, Miller  P, Best  JJK, Johnstone  EC, Lawrie  SM.  Gyrification in first-episode schizophrenia: a morphometric study.   Biol Psychiatry. 2004;55(2):141-147. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00789-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Stanfield  AC, Moorhead  TWJ, Harris  JM, Owens  DGC, Lawrie  SM, Johnstone  EC.  Increased right prefrontal cortical folding in adolescents at risk of schizophrenia for cognitive reasons.   Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(1):80-85. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Sasaki  M.  SPECT findings in autism spectrum disorders and medically refractory seizures.   Epilepsy Behav. 2015;47:167-171. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.10.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Benavente-Fernández  I, Siddiqi  A, Miller  SP.  Socioeconomic status and brain injury in children born preterm: modifying neurodevelopmental outcome.   Pediatr Res. 2020;87(2):391-398. doi:10.1038/s41390-019-0646-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Benavente-Fernández  I, Synnes  A, Grunau  RE,  et al.  Association of socioeconomic status and brain injury with neurodevelopmental outcomes of very preterm children.   JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192914-e192914. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2914PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Kim  P, Evans  GW, Angstadt  M,  et al.  Effects of childhood poverty and chronic stress on emotion regulatory brain function in adulthood.   Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(46):18442-18447. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308240110PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Kishiyama  MM, Boyce  WT, Jimenez  AM, Perry  LM, Knight  RT.  Socioeconomic disparities affect prefrontal function in children.   J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21(6):1106-1115. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21101PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Papini  C, Palaniyappan  L, Kroll  J, Froudist-Walsh  S, Murray  RM, Nosarti  C.  Altered cortical gyrification in adults who were born very preterm and its associations with cognition and mental health.   bioRxiv. 2019. doi:10.1101/2019.12.13.871558Google Scholar
74.
Hendrickson  TJ, Mueller  BA, Sowell  ER,  et al.  Cortical gyrification is abnormal in children with prenatal alcohol exposure.   Neuroimage Clin. 2017;15:391-400. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.05.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Cao  B, Mwangi  B, Passos  IC,  et al.  Lifespan gyrification trajectories of human brain in healthy individuals and patients with major psychiatric disorders.   Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):511. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-00582-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
DeCarli  C, Reed  BR, Jagust  W, Martinez  O, Ortega  M, Mungas  D.  Brain behavior relationships among African Americans, Whites, and Hispanics.   Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2008;22(4):382-391. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e318185e7fePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Choi  YY, Lee  JJ, Choi  KY,  et al.  The aging slopes of brain structures vary by ethnicity and sex: evidence from a large magnetic resonance imaging dataset from a single scanner of cognitively healthy elderly people in Korea.   Front Aging Neurosci. 2020;12:233. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.00233PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Epigenetic Inheritance
    Paul Nelson, MS, MD | Family Health Care, PC retired
    Increasingly, we are witnessing an order-of-magnitude enhancement of our understanding of each person's inheritance based on epigenetic mechanisms. Our traditional view of DNA-based inheritance is now overshadowed by possibly 2-3 (? or more) generations of gestational epigenetic heritage. Increasingly, we will need to consider each person's family epigenetic traditions as a basis for offering perinatal family-leave and early childhood education benefits.

    I am also aware of a review article in January 2020 that described imprinting a person's immune system before birth from their mother's skin, oral, and fecal microbiome (1).

    Reference

    1. Ziad Al Nabhani
    and Gerand Ebert (2020). Imprinting the immune system by the microbiota early in life. Mucosal Immunology, 13:183-189.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    Imaging
    March 29, 2021

    Association Between Socioeconomic Status and In Utero Fetal Brain Development

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Developing Brain Institute, Children's National Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
    • 2Department of Quality and Patient Safety, Children's National Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
    • 3Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia
    • 4Prenatal Pediatrics Institute, Children's National Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e213526. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3526
    Key Points

    Question  Is parental socioeconomic status associated with fetal brain development?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 144 healthy pregnant women and their fetuses, low parental socioeconomic status was associated with decreased regional fetal brain tissue volume and increased brain gyrification.

    Meaning  This cohort study found that parental socioeconomic status was associated with altered fetal brain morphology as measured by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging techniques, which may serve as an early biomarker associated with childhood neurodevelopmental disorders.

    Abstract

    Importance  Children raised in settings with lower parental socioeconomic status are at increased risk for neuropsychological disorders. However, to date, the association between socioeconomic status and fetal brain development remains poorly understood.

    Objective  To determine the association between parental socioeconomic status and in vivo fetal brain growth and cerebral cortical development using advanced, 3-dimensional fetal magnetic resonance imaging.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This cohort study of fetal brain development enrolled 144 healthy pregnant women from 2 low-risk community obstetrical hospitals from 2012 through 2019 in the District of Columbia. Included women had a prenatal history without complications that included recommended screening laboratory and ultrasound studies. Exclusion criteria were multiple gestation pregnancy, known or suspected congenital infection, dysmorphic features of the fetus, and documented chromosomal abnormalities. T2-weighted fetal brain magnetic resonance images were acquired. Each pregnant woman was scanned at up to 2 points in the fetal period. Data were analyzed from June through November 2020.

    Exposures  Parental education level and occupation status were documented.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Regional fetal brain tissue volume (for cortical gray matter, white matter, cerebellum, deep gray matter, and brainstem) and cerebral cortical features (ie, lobe volume, local gyrification index, and sulcal depth) in the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes were calculated.

    Results  Fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging studies were performed among 144 pregnant women (median [interquartile range] age, 32.5 [27.0-36.1] years) with gestational age from 24.0 to 39.4 weeks; 75 fetuses (52.1%) were male, and 69 fetuses (47.9%) were female. Higher parental education level was associated with significantly increased volume in the fetal white matter (mothers: β, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.26 to 4.45; P = .001; fathers: β, 2.39; 95% CI, 0.97 to 3.81; P = .001), deep gray matter (mothers: β, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.002 to 0.32; P = .048; fathers: β, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.31; P = .02), and brainstem (mothers: β, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.10; P = .01; fathers: β, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.004 to 0.08; P = .03). Higher maternal occupation status was associated with significantly increased volume in the fetal white matter (β, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 3.26; P = .001), cerebellum (β, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.29; P = .01), and brainstem (β, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.001 to 0.07; P = .04), and higher paternal occupation status was associated with significantly increased white matter volume (β, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.71 to 3.25; P < .01). However, higher socioeconomic status was associated with significantly decreased fetal cortical gray matter volume (mothers: β, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.18 to −0.03; P = .01; fathers: β, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.18 to −0.03; P = .01). Higher parental socioeconomic status was associated with increased volumes of 3 brain lobes of white matter: frontal lobe (mothers: β, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.13; P = .01; fathers: β, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.11; P = .03), parietal lobe (mothers: β, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.11; P < .001; fathers: β, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.10; P = .001), and temporal lobe (mothers: β, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07; P < .001; fathers: β, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07; P < .001), and maternal SES score was associated with significantly decreased volume in the occipital lobe (β, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.002 to 0.04; P = .03). Higher parental socioeconomic status was associated with decreased cortical local gyrification index (for example, for the frontal lobe, mothers: β, −1.1; 95% CI, −1.9 to −0.3; P = .01; fathers: β, −0.8; 95% CI, −1.6 to −0.1; P = .03) and sulcal depth, except for the frontal lobe (for example, for the parietal lobe, mothers: β, −9.5; 95% CI, −13.8 to −5.3; P < .001; fathers: β, −8.7; 95% CI, −13.0 to −4.4; P < .001).

    Conclusions and Relevance  This cohort study found an association between parental socioeconomic status and altered in vivo fetal neurodevelopment. While being born and raised in a lower socioeconomic status setting is associated with poorer neuropsychological, educational, and socioeconomic outcomes in children, these findings suggest that altered prenatal programming may be associated with these outcomes and that future targeted prenatal interventions may be needed.

    Introduction

    Socioeconomic status (SES) is the social standing or class of an individual or group.1-3 It is a complex construct that encompasses household income, material resources, education, and occupation. Among individuals with lower SES backgrounds, SES-associated variability in children’s experiences has been associated with not only adverse cognitive and social-emotional development throughout childhood and adolescence, but also higher rates of depression, anxiety, and attention and conduct disorders.4,5 Moreover, a 1998 study6 found that a child's brain development may vary by SES background, typically indexed by family income and parental education. Available evidence suggests that lower SES is associated with decreased regional brain growth in infants,7-9 particularly in the frontal and parietal lobe volumes, and decreased cortical gray matter (CGM) and deep gray matter (DGM) volumes in older children and adolescents.2,10-16 These findings of lower SES and altered brain structure have been associated with impaired neurocognitive function.1,10,17 While the association of SES measures, including family income, parental occupation, and parental education, with brain development has been widely investigated, many questions remain unanswered. These include questions about when the onset and timing of brain development diverges in populations that are at high risk for adverse developmental outcomes and have SES-associated disparities and what, if any, association SES has with fetal cortical maturation. The ability to interrogate early brain development, beginning in the fetal period, may help analysts and policy makers identify levels of intervention and entry points for action to support and optimize well-being of populations at high risk for adverse developmental outcomes.

    The goal of this study was to determine the association between SES and fetal brain development using in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 3-dimensional computational brain models among healthy fetuses. We hypothesized that SES would be associated with fetal brain volumetric growth and cerebral cortical development in healthy fetuses. Notably, this study allowed us to investigate the association between SES and emerging fetal brain morphologic characteristics and gyrification without the confounding associations of well-established postnatal environmental variables.7-10,15

    Methods

    This cohort study was approved by the Children’s National Hospital institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

    Study Participants

    We prospectively enrolled 144 healthy pregnant women in a longitudinal fetal brain MRI study from 2 low-risk obstetrical community hospitals from 2012 through 2019 in the District of Columbia. Healthy pregnant volunteers were included if they had a prenatal history without complications that included recommend screening laboratory and ultrasound studies. Exclusion criteria were multiple gestation pregnancy, known or suspected congenital infection, syndromic features or dysgenetic lesions of the fetus, and documented chromosomal abnormalities. We also excluded pregnant women with any maternal contraindication to MRI. Enrolled fetuses with postnatal confirmation of a genetic syndrome, significant extracardiac anomalies, or structural (eg, encephaloclastic or dysgenetic) brain abnormalities on fetal MRI were excluded from the study. Participating women self-identified their race/ethnicity from a list of options defined by the investigators.

    MRI Data Acquisition

    Multiplane, multiphase single-shot fast spin echo (SSFSE) T2-weighted images for fetal brain were acquired on a 1.5 Tesla GE Discovery MR450 scanner (GE Healthcare) using an 8-channel surface receiver coil (USA Instruments) (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). The acquisition parameters were used as follows: echo time, 160 ms; repetition time, 1100 ms; field of view, 320 × 320 mm2; dimension; 256 × 256; slice thickness, 2 mm; and 50 to 70 consecutive slices for full fetal brain coverage in the axial, coronal, and sagittal planes for a final in-plane resolution of 1.25 × 1.25 mm2. Each fetus was scanned at up to 2 points in the fetal period.

    SES Measures

    Parental education and occupation were documented at the time of each MRI visit. We acquired SES data from parents’ responses to a sociodemographic questionnaire, which is an adjusted version of the Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position.18 The level of education and occupational status were coded from 1 to 5 (ie, lowest to highest). Maternal and paternal SES scores were derived by summing the occupation status, which had a weight of 7, and the education status, which had a weight of 4.10 The resulting SES score ranged from 11 (ie, unemployment and no formal education beyond obligatory schooling) to 55 (ie, higher executive with postcollege education).

    Image Processing

    Fetal brain T2-weighted multiplane images were first motion corrected using the slice-to-volume registration method.19 This procedure reduced interslice motion artifacts and provided images with enhanced contrast and resolution, along with coherent anatomic boundaries in 3-dimensional space. Automatic segmentation was applied using the Developing Brain Region Annotation with Expectation-Maximization (Draw-EM) algorithm.20,21 Two sets of tissue labels were generated from Draw-EM: the segmentation file with 9 labels20 and the parcellation file with 50 labels.21 Manual correction of tissue labels of the segmentation and parcellation files was performed by a trained research team member (K.K.) with more than 5 years of experience in fetal brain segmentation using Insight Segmentation and Registration Toolkit-Snake Automatic Partitioning (University of North Carolina).22 From among 184 scans taken, a second trained examiner (N.R.A.) randomly chose and segmented 35 scans (19.0%). Inter-rater reliabilities using intraclass correlation coefficient for all measured regions were higher than 0.95.

    We extracted 10 connected brain regions from segmentation and parcellation files (eFigure 2 and eFigure 3 in the Supplement). The frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes; anterior and posterior cingulate gyrus; insula; and corpus callosum were extracted from the parcellation file, and the DGM and ventricles were extracted from the segmentation file. The connected brain regions were imported to BrainSuite version 18a (University of California, Los Angeles) to generate 3-dimensional surface mesh models.23 Each mesh model included a set of 3-dimensional coordinates for the surface vertices and a set of triangular meshes (faces). Every surface vertex was associated with 1 of the connected brain regions.

    Fetal Brain Volumes

    The volumes of the brain tissues from the segmentation file were determined based on the voxel sizes of the images. The tissues included the CGM, white matter (WM), DGM, cerebellum, and brainstem (eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

    Cortical Folding

    Gyrification or fetal brain cortical folding is the process by which the brain undergoes changes in surface morphologic characteristics to create sulcal and gyral regions. Common indices for evaluating brain gyrification are the gyrification index (GI) and sulcal depth.24 The clinical relevance of these indices has been suggested in studies of healthy and delayed brain development.24-30 However, to our knowledge, the association of SES with brain gyrification has rarely been explored,3,15,31 with less research for the fetal brain.

    To characterize 3-dimensional fetal brain morphology, 3 cortical features (ie, lobe volume, local GI [LGI], and sulcal depth) were measured in the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes (eFigure 4 in the Supplement).30,32-34 Volumes of the 4 lobes of WM were calculated as the multiplication of the number of brain voxels by the voxel resolution from the magnetic resonance images.29 To calculate LGI and sulcal depth, convex hull surface of the connected brain regions was first generated.35 The LGI at a given vertex on the surface was computed as the ratio between the area of a circular region of the vertex on the surface and the corresponding area on the convex hull for the vertex.26,36,37 The sulcal depth was characterized by the distance from each vertex on the brain surface to the nearest point on a convex hull for each brain hemisphere.38 The LGI and sulcal depth were calculated on the inner surface of the CGM (ie, the gray and white junction).25,30,32,39

    Maternal Distress

    Maternal distress measures were completed by each woman on the day of the MRI. These measures included the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory (SSAI), Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS).40 Of the study group, only 84 participants (58.3%) completed these questionnaires given that they were included in our design from 2015 onward.

    Statistical Analysis

    Various univariate analyses were performed to explore the demographic data and SES measures. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test the normality of the continuous variables, including gestational age (GA); maternal age; child’s birth weight, length, and head circumference; parental SES scores; and maternal distress measures, and the results suggested that all these variables were not normally distributed. The fetal and maternal demographic characteristics were therefore compared between families with low SES and those with high SES using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests for GA, maternal age; z scores of child’s birth weight, length, and head circumference; and maternal distress measures and using χ2 tests for fetal sex, number of scans, maternal parity, and maternal race/ethnicity. The high SES group included those families whose maternal or paternal SES score was higher than the median SES score (51). The association between maternal education and occupation levels and paternal education and occupation levels were assessed using χ2 tests. The maternal and paternal SES scores were compared using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The correlations among SES measures (ie, education and occupation levels and SES score) were reported by Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ). The somatic size (ie, birth height, length, and head circumference) by SES (low vs high), adjusted for GA at birth and fetal sex, was further analyzed using linear regression. Of 40 participants who had 2 MRIs, the slopes to measure brain growth rate through the difference of brain volumes and cortical features between the first and second MRIs were calculated, and statistical comparisons of the slopes between low and high SES using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were conducted.

    The associations between SES measures and fetal brain tissue volumes and cortical features were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models.41,42 More specifically, in each linear mixed-effects model, 1 of the following dependent variables was considered: brain tissue volume for the 5 brain tissues; whole brain volume; or lobe volume, LGI, or sulcal depth for the 4 lobes. The primary independent variable was education, occupation, or SES score as a continuous or dichotomized (ie, low SES, 0; high SES, 1) variable, and all linear mixed-effects models were adjusted for GA at MRI date (in weeks) and fetal sex (ie, female, 0; male, 1). Random association using Cholesky parameterization was included to control intrasubject correlation owing to the potential for more than 1 scan for each woman.41,43

    We further incorporated maternal distress (ie, low distress, 0; high distress, 1) into the linear mixed-effects models to investigate these associations after adjusting for maternal distress. High distress was defined as a participant in an MRI visit with 1 of the 4 distress measures greater than the corresponding threshold (ie, SSAI, 40; STAI, 40; PSS, 15; EPDS, 10).40 The associations between maternal distress measures and parental education, occupation levels, and SES score were determined using linear mixed-effects models.

    The critical value for significance was set as .05.44 The q values calculated by the Benjamini-Hochberg method for 5 brain tissue types or 4 brain lobes were also reported to reflect significant parameters under multiple comparisons. All analyses performed in this study were conducted from June through November 2020 using Matlab statistical software version R2019a (MathWorks),41 and all hypothesis tests were 2-sided.

    Results
    Baseline Demographic Characteristics and SES

    A diagram illustrating participant recruitment is shown in eFigure 5 in the Supplement. Of 286 MRI scans taken, 29 MRI (10.1%) scans with excessive motion and 73 MRI scans (25.5%) with failed brain surface reconstruction for cortical folding measures were excluded. The final data set consisted of 144 pregnant women (median [interquartile range] age, 32.5 [27.0-36.1] years); 75 fetuses (52.1%) were male, and 69 fetuses (47.9%) were female. A total of 184 fetal brain MRI scans were acquired (Table 1). Among 144 study participants, 40 fetuses (23 male fetuses and 17 female fetuses) were scanned at 2 points during pregnancy, while all other fetuses (52 male fetuses and 52 female fetuses) were scanned once. The median (range) GA at MRI of the 184 scans was 33.6 (24.0-39.4) weeks. Of 40 study participants who had 2 MRI scans, the median (range) GA was 28.3 (25.0-36.1) weeks for the first MRI scan and 36.6 (31.3-39.1) for the second MRI scan. Table 2 shows that about 40% of parents had graduate professional training (59 mothers [41.0%] and 56 fathers [38.9%]), while less than 25% had high school or partial high school education (23 mothers [16.0%] and 35 fathers [24.3%]). Approximately 60% of parents had a major business or professional occupation (85 mothers [59.0%] and 87 fathers [60.4%]). Among all participants, 27 mothers were unemployed or homemakers (18.8%), vs 18 fathers who were unemployed or homemakers (12.5%). No significant differences between the distributions of maternal and paternal education or occupation levels were found (Table 2). The median (range) maternal and paternal SES scores were both 51 (11-55), and the maternal and paternal SES scores were not significantly different (rank sum test statistic, 20 841; P = .96). All SES measures were significantly correlated (eTable 1 in the Supplement). In addition, birth weight, length, and head circumference, adjusting for GA at birth and fetal sex, did not differ significantly between the low and high SES groups based on linear regression. The number of MRI scans obtained for each GA range is shown in eTable 2 in the Supplement.

    Fetal CGM volumetric growth rate was higher in the low SES group, while WM volumetric growth rate was higher in the high SES group (eTable 3 in the Supplement). No significant differences in LGI or sulcal depth growth rates were found between low and high SES groups (eTable 3 in the Supplement).

    None of the maternal distress measures were different between low and high SES groups (eTable 4 in the Supplement). No significant associations between maternal distress measures and parental education or occupation levels or SES score were found (eTable 5 in the Supplement).

    Fetal Brain Tissue Volumes

    We found that higher parental education, occupation, and SES score were associated with significantly increased fetal brain WM, DGM, brainstem, and cerebellar volumes (Table 3; eFigure 6 in the Supplement). Specifically, higher maternal and paternal education levels were associated with significantly increased volumes of the WM (mothers: β, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.26-4.45; P = .001; fathers: β, 2.39; 95% CI, 0.97-3.81; P = .001), DGM (mothers: β, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.002-0.32; P = .048; fathers: β, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-0.31; P = .02), and brainstem (mothers: β, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.10; P = .01; fathers: β, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.004-0.08; P = .03). In addition, higher maternal occupation status was associated with significantly increased volumes in the WM (β, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.88-3.26; P = .001), brainstem (β, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.001-0.07; P = .04), and cerebellum (β, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P = .01), while higher paternal occupation status was associated with significantly increased WM volume (β, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.71-3.25; P < .01). Higher maternal SES score was associated with significantly increased volume of the WM (β, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.36; P < .001), brainstem (β, 0.004; 95% CI, 0.001-0.01; P = 0.02), and cerebellum (β, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.03; P = .004), and higher paternal SES score was associated with significantly increased volume in the WM (β, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.34; P = .001) and brainstem (β, 0.004; 95% CI, 0.0001-0.007; P=0.04).

    Higher level of parental education was associated with significantly decreased CGM volume (mothers: β, −1.41; 95% CI, −2.41 to −0.41; P = .01; fathers: β, −0.95; 95% CI, −1.84 to −0.06; P = 0.04), as were higher occupation level (mothers: β, −0.90; 95% CI, −1.65 to −0.16; P = .02; fathers: β, −1.08; 95% CI, −1.87 to −0.29; P = .01) and SES score (mothers: β, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.18 to −0.03; P = .01; fathers: β, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.18 to −0.03; P = .01). In the high SES group, compared with the low SES group, the CGM volume was lower (68.1 cm3 vs 70.8 cm3) while the volume was higher in the WM (112.7 cm3 vs 106.8 cm3), cerebellum (10.9 cm3 vs 10.5 cm3), and brainstem (4.65 cm3 vs 4.53 cm3) (eTable 6 and eFigure 7 in the Supplement).

    Fetal Cortical Folding

    Regional cortical features were further calculated for 4 lobes. Higher maternal SES score was associated with increased lobe volume: frontal lobe (β, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.13; P = .01), parietal lobe (β, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11; P < .001), temporal lobe (β, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.07; P < .001), and occipital lobe (β, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04; P = .03). Higher maternal education level (frontal lobe: β, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.22-1.59; P = .01; parietal lobe: β, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.43-1.37; P < .001; temporal lobe: β, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-0.82; P < .001; occipital lobe: β, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.02-0.45; P = .03) and occupation level (frontal lobe: β, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.16-1.17; P=0.01; parietal lobe: β, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.27-0.97; P = .001; temporal lobe: β, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.59; P < .001; occipital lobe: β, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.01-0.33; P = .04) were also associated with larger lobe volumes (Table 4; eFigure 8 in the Supplement).

    Higher maternal SES score was associated with significantly decreased LGI (for example, for the frontal lobe: β, −1.1; 95% CI, −1.9 to −0.3) and sulcal depth (for example, for the parietal lobe: β, −9.5; 95% CI, −13.8 to −5.3; P < .001), except for sulcal depth in the frontal lobe. Higher maternal education level was also associated with significantly decreased LGI (for example, for the frontal lobe: β, −13; 95% CI, −23 to −3; P = .01) and sulcal depth (for example, for the parietal lobe: β, −116; 95% CI, −171 to −62; P < .001), as was maternal occupation level (for example, LGI for the frontal lobe: β, −10; 95% CI, −17 to −3; P = .01 and sulcal depth for the parietal lobe: β, −85; 95% CI, −125 to −44; P < .001), except for sulcal depth in the frontal lobe.

    Similarly, higher paternal SES score was associated with significantly increased lobe volumes, except for the occipital lobe (frontal lobe: β, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.11; P = .03; parietal lobe: β, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.10; P = .001; temporal lobe: β, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07; P < .001). Higher paternal education (frontal lobe: β, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.11-1.32; P = .02; parietal lobe: β, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.27-1.11; P = .002; temporal lobe: β, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20-0.70; P < .001; occipital lobe: β, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.02-0.40; P = .03) and occupation level (frontal lobe: β, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.01-1.10; P = .046; parietal lobe: β, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.25-1.00; P = .001; temporal lobe: β, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.66; P < .001) were also associated with significantly larger lobe volume, except for paternal occupation level and the occipital lobe (Table 5; eFigure 8 in the Supplement).

    In addition, higher paternal SES score was associated with significantly decreased LGI (for example, for the frontal lobe: β, −0.8; 95% CI, −1.6 to −0.1; P = .03) and sulcal depth (for example, for the parietal lobe: β, −8.7; 95% CI, −13.0 to −4.4; P < .001), except for sulcal depth in the frontal lobe. Higher paternal education was also associated with significantly decreased LGI (for example, for the frontal lobe: β, −9; 95% CI, −18 to −0.1; P = .048) and sulcal depth (for example, for the parietal lobe: β, −90; 95% CI, −139 to −41; P < .001), as was higher occupation level, (for example, LGI for the frontal lobe: β, −8; 95% CI, −16 to −0.3; P = .04 and sulcal depth for the parietal lobe: β, −85; 95% CI, −128 to −42; P < .001), except for sulcal depth in the frontal lobe.

    In the high SES group, compared with the low SES group, LGI was decreased in the 4 brain lobes (frontal lobe: 1.22 vs 1.25; parietal lobe: 1.34 vs 1.40; temporal lobe: 1.34 vs 1.37; occipital lobe: 1.27 vs 1.32), and sulcal depth was decreased in the parietal lobe (2.00 mm vs 2.25 mm), temporal lobe (1.85 mm vs 1.97 mm), and occipital lobe (1.17 mm vs 1.32 mm) (eTable 6 and eFigure 9 in the Supplement).

    All β coefficients of GA at MRI were positive and significant (eTable 7, eTable 8, eTable 9 in the Supplement). Male fetuses had higher CGM and brainstem volume and total brain volume (eTable 10 in the Supplement), while there were no differences in LGI or sulcal depth by sex (eTable 11 and eTable 12 in the Supplement).

    After further adjusting for maternal distress, we found that higher parental education level, occupation level, and SES score were associated with increased WM and total brain volume (eTable 13 in the Supplement). After the adjustment, increased maternal education was associated with decreased LGI and sulcal depth in the parietal lobe and no paternal SES measures were associated with LGI or sulcal depth (eTable 14 and eTable 15 in the Supplement).

    Discussion

    This cohort study found that parental SES was associated with altered tissue volume in several brain regions and altered cortical features among fetuses. The study used advanced in vivo fetal 3-dimensional volumetric MRI to investigate the association between SES and in utero fetal brain development during the latter half of gestation. Quantitative fetal MRI techniques afforded us the unique opportunity to noninvasively probe in utero fetal brain developmental trajectories. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine in utero regional and tissue-specific brain growth and emerging cerebral cortical folding in association with socioeconomic indicators in a large normative population sample of healthy fetuses from healthy pregnancies. We found that SES measures (ie, education level, occupation level, and SES score) were mutually correlated. Fetal CGM volume was decreased while WM, cerebellar, and brainstem volumes were increased in the high SES group. For our cortical measures, LGI and sulcal depth were decreased in the high SES group. We also found that higher maternal and paternal education levels were associated with increased DGM and brainstem volumes, while higher maternal occupation level was associated with increased cerebellar and brainstem volumes. Conversely, higher SES measures were associated with decreased LGI and sulcal depth in all lobes, except for sulcal depth in the frontal lobe. These findings suggest that parental education level and employment status are associated with in vivo human fetal brain development and may provide evidence for altered prenatal programming.

    We found that higher parental education and occupation levels were associated with increased volumes of the developing fetal brain WM, DGM, cerebellum, and brainstem during pregnancy. The association of SES with the volumes of specific brain lobes or regions has been previously investigated among infants and older children, and the results of these studies2,9-11,45 are consistent with our findings in the prenatal period. A review study46 found that several potential proximal factors, such as stress, parenting practices, prenatal care, and nutrition, may be associated with SES measures and brain structure and function. Although the mechanisms underlying our in utero observations are undoubtedly complicated and poorly understood, we postulate that increased psychosocial stress in populations with lower SES may be associated with WM development in the fetal brain. Four studies47-50 have found that lower family income is associated with higher stress prevalence, and it is well known that poverty is associated with a variety of negative life experiences and higher levels of stress.51-54 Collectively, these stressful life events may be significant mediators associated with income-to-need ratio and childhood brain development.11 These associations may also be explained by additional psychological stressors.51,52 Maternal education has also been found to be associated with brain development and verbal scale IQ of offspring by predominantly genetic associations, in addition to shared environmental associations.55 These risk factors may play a role in the association between parental SES and altered fetal brain volumes.11 Of note, these risk factors may be further elucidated using mediation analysis for measures of SES, candidate proximal mediators, and analyses of the brain measures.46,56

    We found that higher SES was associated with decreased CGM volume. Although the mechanisms underlying these associations are unclear, we postulate that lower SES is associated with increased CGM volume secondary to an inflammatory response associated with increased stress levels, representing a compensatory outcome in the early stage of mental illness.57-60 Studies61-63 have found that stress is associated with increased inflammatory responses and altered cytokine production during gestation. However, it should be noted that Wu et al40 reported in 2020 that increased maternal psychological distress during pregnancy in a cohort of women with high levels of resources and education was not associated with impaired fetal brain tissue growth or cerebellar or brainstem volume. Rather, increased maternal stress was associated with decreased fetal hippocampal volume, suggesting regional vulnerability of the hippocampal structure. These data suggest that the underlying mechanisms and mediators associated with stress in the setting of SES-associated disparities and altered fetal neurodevelopment may be different. Results in the limited literature suggest that lower SES is associated with decreased volumes of CGM; however, it is worthwhile to note that these findings have generally been in the context of studies designed to address targeted brain regions in children and adolescents.2,8,9,11 In our analyses, SES measures were not associated with variations in total brain volumes. However, higher SES measures were associated with decreased regional CGM volume and increased WM volume. These findings are consistent with the results of studies from 201210,14 and 201013 among older children and young adolescents. Future prospective longitudinal studies may be needed to address these intriguing and complex knowledge gaps.

    We reported that higher SES measures were associated with increased LGI and sulcal depth on the cortical surface in the parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes. This accelerated brain gyrification in lower SES populations may be in part associated with parental stress. Converging evidence points to increased cerebral cortical folding in fetuses,40 children, and adults64-68 exposed to prenatal stress and other neuropsychiatric disorders, including autism and schizophrenia. Studies have reported increased GI in the frontal and temporal lobes in adults with schizophrenia64-67 and in the frontal lobe of children with autism.68 These findings suggest that parental psychological distress in the setting of lower SES across the lifespan may play a role in the complex cerebral cortical folding process, and this risk may have a fetal onset.

    Several studies7,8,10,11,13,16 have reported an association between SES and brain volumes among infants and adolescents or reported the association of SES with neurodevelopmental outcomes after birth.69-73 However, to the best of our knowledge, only 1 study10 investigated the association between SES and gyrification, finding positive associations between GI and SES in the anterior frontal regions of the left hemisphere. While that conclusion may seem to contradict our findings, several distinguishing features should be noted. First, Jednorog et al’s study10 consisted of a small cohort of 23 children (aged 8-10 years), while our study included a large cohort of 184 fetuses. Second, that study’s GI calculations were based on the cerebral pial surface, vs the gray and white junction used in our study. This junction is known to be more reliably identified than the pial surface,39 and most published GI calculations have been based on the gray and white junction, including studies among fetuses,30,32 preterm infants,25,28,30,33 term-born neonates,34 children,39,74 and adults.35,75 Ongoing studies may be needed to disentangle the complex role and interplay of prenatal parental SES from postnatal SES associations.

    Limitations

    This study has several limitations. First, family income data were not available in our cohort, and therefore we could not examine associations between income and fetal brain development. However, we used occupation level to represent financial standing, which was similar to the strategies used in other studies.2,10 In addition, more detailed assessments of the associations between poverty and indicators associated with physiological and psychological outcomes may be needed to further elucidate mechanisms associated with risk. These indicators may include nutrition and food security, familial psychopathology, and genetic factors, such as parental somatic size. Furthermore, 113 of the women (78.5%) in our study group were White or Black. Race and ethnicity, which are known to be associated with differences in adult brain structure,76,77 should be further explored in future studies to best reflect the diversity of the general population. In addition, we found no difference in distress measures between the group with low SES and that with high SES, and we found no differences in the associations between SES measures and brain volume or cortical features after adjusting for maternal stress, anxiety, and depression. However, measures of maternal psychological distress were available for approximately 60% of the study group, given that we began capturing maternal distress measures in 2015. These results suggest further investigation of potential mediators in these associations may be needed to explore the underlying mechanisms. Additionally, the long-term neurodevelopmental associations of these in vivo fetal brain alterations as measured by prenatal quantitative MRI are unknown and currently under investigation.

    Conclusions

    This cohort study found an association between parental socioeconomic status and altered in vivo fetal neurodevelopment. Understanding how parental SES variations may be associated with neural, social-emotional, and cognitive functioning in humans has major implications for basic scientific questions and public policy initiatives. Greater insights into the neural underpinnings associated with SES, specifically education and poverty, may aid in the design and implementation of intervention programs addressing SES-associated disparities in cognitive and health outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to examine the associations of parental education and occupation with fetal neurodevelopment. These findings may increase our understanding of the neural mechanisms associated with socioeconomic disparities in fetal brain development. We believe that these findings of altered volumetric growth may inform preventive educational strategies and targeted early interventions for the low SES population, which faces a multitude of physical and psychosocial stressors. Ongoing studies are needed and currently underway to determine the long-term association of SES with neurodevelopmental outcomes in infancy and early childhood.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: February 5, 2021.

    Published: March 29, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3526

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Lu Y-C et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Catherine Limperopoulos, PhD, Developing Brain Institute, Children's National Hospital, 111 Michigan Ave NW, Washington, DC 20010 (climpero@childrensnational.org).

    Author Contributions: Dr Lu had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Lu, Quistorff, Andescavage, du Plessis, Limperopoulos.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Lu, Kapse, Limperopoulos.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Lu, Cheng, Limperopoulos.

    Obtained funding: Limperopoulos.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Lu, Kapse, Quistorff, Lopez, Fry, Andescavage, Espinosa, Limperopoulos.

    Supervision: Lu, du Plessis, Limperopoulos.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant No. NHLBI R01 HL116585-01 from the National Institutes of Health.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    References
    1.
    Hurt  H, Betancourt  LM.  Effect of socioeconomic status disparity on child language and neural outcome: how early is early?   Pediatr Res. 2016;79(1-2):148-158. doi:10.1038/pr.2015.202PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Raizada  RDS, Richards  TL, Meltzoff  A, Kuhl  PK.  Socioeconomic status predicts hemispheric specialisation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in young children.   Neuroimage. 2008;40(3):1392-1401. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.021PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Noble  KG, Houston  SM, Brito  NH,  et al.  Family income, parental education and brain structure in children and adolescents.   Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(5):773-778. doi:10.1038/nn.3983PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Hackman  DA, Farah  MJ, Meaney  MJ.  Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research.   Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11(9):651-659. doi:10.1038/nrn2897PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Bradley  RH, Corwyn  RF.  Socioeconomic status and child development.   Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53:371-399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    McLoyd  VC.  Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.   Am Psychol. 1998;53(2):185-204. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Eckert  MA, Lombardino  LJ, Leonard  CM.  Planar asymmetry tips the phonological playground and environment raises the bar.   Child Dev. 2001;72(4):988-1002. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00330PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Hanson  JL, Hair  N, Shen  DG,  et al.  Family poverty affects the rate of human infant brain growth.   PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e80954. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080954PubMedGoogle Scholar
    9.
    Betancourt  LM, Avants  B, Farah  MJ,  et al.  Effect of socioeconomic status (SES) disparity on neural development in female African-American infants at age 1 month.   Dev Sci. 2016;19(6):947-956. doi:10.1111/desc.12344PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Jednoróg  K, Altarelli  I, Monzalvo  K,  et al.  The influence of socioeconomic status on children’s brain structure.   PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42486. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042486PubMedGoogle Scholar
    11.
    Luby  J, Belden  A, Botteron  K,  et al.  The effects of poverty on childhood brain development: the mediating effect of caregiving and stressful life events.   JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(12):1135-1142. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Hanson  JL, Chandra  A, Wolfe  BL, Pollak  SD.  Association between income and the hippocampus.   PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e18712. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018712PubMedGoogle Scholar
    13.
    Lange  N, Froimowitz  MP, Bigler  ED, Lainhart  JE; Brain Development Cooperative Group.  Associations between IQ, total and regional brain volumes, and demography in a large normative sample of healthy children and adolescents.   Dev Neuropsychol. 2010;35(3):296-317. doi:10.1080/87565641003696833PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Brain Development Cooperative Group.  Total and regional brain volumes in a population-based normative sample from 4 to 18 years: the NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development.   Cereb Cortex. 2012;22(1):1-12. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Lawson  GM, Duda  JT, Avants  BB, Wu  J, Farah  MJ.  Associations between children’s socioeconomic status and prefrontal cortical thickness.   Dev Sci. 2013;16(5):641-652. doi:10.1111/desc.12096PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Noble  KG, Houston  SM, Kan  E, Sowell  ER.  Neural correlates of socioeconomic status in the developing human brain.   Dev Sci. 2012;15(4):516-527. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01147.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Noble  KG, McCandliss  BD, Farah  MJ.  Socioeconomic gradients predict individual differences in neurocognitive abilities.   Dev Sci. 2007;10(4):464-480. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00600.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Ritsher  JE, Warner  V, Johnson  JG, Dohrenwend  BP.  Inter-generational longitudinal study of social class and depression: a test of social causation and social selection models.   Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2001;40:s84-s90. doi:10.1192/bjp.178.40.s84PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Kainz  B, Steinberger  M, Wein  W,  et al.  Fast volume reconstruction from motion corrupted stacks of 2D slices.   IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015;34(9):1901-1913. doi:10.1109/TMI.2015.2415453PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Makropoulos  A, Gousias  IS, Ledig  C,  et al.  Automatic whole brain MRI segmentation of the developing neonatal brain.   IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33(9):1818-1831. doi:10.1109/TMI.2014.2322280PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Makropoulos  A, Aljabar  P, Wright  R,  et al.  Regional growth and atlasing of the developing human brain.   Neuroimage. 2016;125:456-478. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.047PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Yushkevich  PA, Piven  J, Hazlett  HC,  et al.  User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability.   Neuroimage. 2006;31(3):1116-1128. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Shattuck  DW, Leahy  RM.  BrainSuite: an automated cortical surface identification tool.   Med Image Anal. 2002;6(2):129-142. doi:10.1016/S1361-8415(02)00054-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Shimony  JS, Smyser  CD, Wideman  G,  et al.  Comparison of cortical folding measures for evaluation of developing human brain.   Neuroimage. 2016;125:780-790. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Rodriguez-Carranza  CE, Mukherjee  P, Vigneron  D, Barkovich  J, Studholme  C.  A framework for in vivo quantification of regional brain folding in premature neonates.   Neuroimage. 2008;41(2):462-478. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Mietchen  D, Gaser  C.  Computational morphometry for detecting changes in brain structure due to development, aging, learning, disease and evolution.   Front Neuroinform. 2009;3:25. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.025.2009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Kochunov  P, Rogers  W, Mangin  J-F, Lancaster  J.  A library of cortical morphology analysis tools to study development, aging and genetics of cerebral cortex.   Neuroinformatics. 2012;10(1):81-96. doi:10.1007/s12021-011-9127-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Engelhardt  E, Inder  TE, Alexopoulos  D,  et al.  Regional impairments of cortical folding in premature infants.   Ann Neurol. 2015;77(1):154-162. doi:10.1002/ana.24313PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Moeskops  P, Benders  MJNL, Kersbergen  KJ,  et al.  Development of cortical morphology evaluated with longitudinal MR brain images of preterm infants.   PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131552PubMedGoogle Scholar
    30.
    Lefèvre  J, Germanaud  D, Dubois  J,  et al.  Are developmental trajectories of cortical folding comparable between cross-sectional datasets of fetuses and preterm newborns?   Cereb Cortex. 2016;26(7):3023-3035. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv123PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Leijser  LM, Siddiqi  A, Miller  SP.  Imaging evidence of the effect of socio-economic status on brain structure and development.   Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2018;27:26-34. doi:10.1016/j.spen.2018.03.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Clouchoux  C, Kudelski  D, Gholipour  A,  et al.  Quantitative in vivo MRI measurement of cortical development in the fetus.   Brain Struct Funct. 2012;217(1):127-139. doi:10.1007/s00429-011-0325-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Dubois  J, Benders  M, Cachia  A,  et al.  Mapping the early cortical folding process in the preterm newborn brain.   Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(6):1444-1454. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhm180PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Hill  J, Dierker  D, Neil  J,  et al.  A surface-based analysis of hemispheric asymmetries and folding of cerebral cortex in term-born human infants.   J Neurosci. 2010;30(6):2268-2276. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4682-09.2010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Van Essen  DC.  A Population-Average, Landmark- and Surface-based (PALS) atlas of human cerebral cortex.   Neuroimage. 2005;28(3):635-662. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Li  G, Wang  L, Shi  F,  et al.  Mapping longitudinal development of local cortical gyrification in infants from birth to 2 years of age.   J Neurosci. 2014;34(12):4228-4238. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3976-13.2014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Schaer  M, Cuadra  MB, Tamarit  L, Lazeyras  F, Eliez  S, Thiran  J-P.  A surface-based approach to quantify local cortical gyrification.   IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2008;27(2):161-170. doi:10.1109/TMI.2007.903576PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Tosun  D, Siddarth  P, Levitt  J, Caplan  R.  Cortical thickness and sulcal depth: insights on development and psychopathology in paediatric epilepsy.   BJPsych Open. 2015;1(2):129-135. doi:10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.001719PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Pienaar  R, Fischl  B, Caviness  V, Makris  N, Grant  PE.  A methodology for analyzing curvature in the developing brain from preterm to adult.   Int J Imaging Syst Technol. 2008;18(1):42-68. doi:10.1002/ima.20138PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Wu  Y, Lu  Y-C, Jacobs  M,  et al.  Association of prenatal maternal psychological distress with fetal brain growth, metabolism, and cortical maturation.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1919940. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19940PubMedGoogle Scholar
    41.
    Garcia  TP, Marder  K.  Statistical approaches to longitudinal data analysis in neurodegenerative diseases: Huntington’s disease as a model.   Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2017;17(2):14. doi:10.1007/s11910-017-0723-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Winter  B. A very basic tutorial for performing linear mixed effects analyses: tutorial 2. Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Education and Synthesis. Accessed February 18, 2021. doi:10.25334/Q4W716
    43.
    Daniels  MJ, Zhao  YD.  Modelling the random effects covariance matrix in longitudinal data.   Stat Med. 2003;22(10):1631-1647. doi:10.1002/sim.1470PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Andescavage  N, duPlessis  A, Metzler  M,  et al.  In vivo assessment of placental and brain volumes in growth-restricted fetuses with and without fetal Doppler changes using quantitative 3D MRI.   J Perinatol. 2017;37(12):1278-1284. doi:10.1038/jp.2017.129PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Hair  NL, Hanson  JL, Wolfe  BL, Pollak  SD.  Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement.   JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(9):822-829. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Farah  MJ.  The neuroscience of socioeconomic status: correlates, causes, and consequences.   Neuron. 2017;96(1):56-71. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.08.034PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Yang  T, Yang  XY, Yu  L, Cottrell  RR, Jiang  S.  Individual and regional association between socioeconomic status and uncertainty stress, and life stress: a representative nationwide study of China.   Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):118. doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0618-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Sverke  M, Hellgren  J, Näswall  K.  No security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences.   J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7(3):242-264. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Heaney  CA, Israel  BA, House  JS.  Chronic job insecurity among automobile workers: effects on job satisfaction and health.   Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(10):1431-1437. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90281-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Wanberg  CR.  The individual experience of unemployment.   Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:369-396. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Barbeau  EM, Krieger  N, Soobader  M-J.  Working class matters: socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender, and smoking in NHIS 2000.   Am J Public Health. 2004;94(2):269-278. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.2.269PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Sorensen  G, Barbeau  E, Hunt  MK, Emmons  K.  Reducing social disparities in tobacco use: a social-contextual model for reducing tobacco use among blue-collar workers.   Am J Public Health. 2004;94(2):230-239. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.2.230PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Landsbergis  PA, Schnall  PL, Pickering  TG, Warren  K, Schwartz  JE.  Lower socioeconomic status among men in relation to the association between job strain and blood pressure.   Scand J Work Environ Health. 2003;29(3):206-215. doi:10.5271/sjweh.723PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Ham  DC, Przybeck  T, Strickland  JR, Luke  DA, Bierut  LJ, Evanoff  BA.  Occupation and workplace policies predict smoking behaviors: analysis of national data from the current population survey.   J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(11):1337-1345. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182337778PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Neiss  M, Rowe  DC.  Parental education and child’s verbal IQ in adoptive and biological families in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.   Behav Genet. 2000;30(6):487-495. doi:10.1023/A:1010254918997PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    MacKinnon  DP, Fairchild  AJ, Fritz  MS.  Mediation analysis.   Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:593-614. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Li  Q, Zhao  Y, Chen  Z,  et al.  Meta-analysis of cortical thickness abnormalities in medication-free patients with major depressive disorder.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2020;45(4):703-712. doi:10.1038/s41386-019-0563-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    58.
    Dowlati  Y, Herrmann  N, Swardfager  W,  et al.  A meta-analysis of cytokines in major depression.   Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67(5):446-457. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.09.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    59.
    Qiu  L, Lui  S, Kuang  W,  et al.  Regional increases of cortical thickness in untreated, first-episode major depressive disorder.   Transl Psychiatry. 2014;4:e378. doi:10.1038/tp.2014.18PubMedGoogle Scholar
    60.
    Abé  C, Liberg  B, Song  J,  et al.  Longitudinal cortical thickness changes in bipolar disorder and the relationship to genetic risk, mania, and lithium use.   Biol Psychiatry. 2020;87(3):271-281. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.08.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    61.
    Coussons-Read  ME, Okun  ML, Nettles  CD.  Psychosocial stress increases inflammatory markers and alters cytokine production across pregnancy.   Brain Behav Immun. 2007;21(3):343-350. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2006.08.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    62.
    Hantsoo  L, Kornfield  S, Anguera  MC, Epperson  CN.  Inflammation: a proposed intermediary between maternal stress and offspring neuropsychiatric risk.   Biol Psychiatry. 2019;85(2):97-106. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.08.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    63.
    Entringer  S, Kumsta  R, Nelson  EL, Hellhammer  DH, Wadhwa  PD, Wüst  S.  Influence of prenatal psychosocial stress on cytokine production in adult women.   Dev Psychobiol. 2008;50(6):579-587. doi:10.1002/dev.20316PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    64.
    Falkai  P, Honer  WG, Kamer  T,  et al.  Disturbed frontal gyrification within families affected with schizophrenia.   J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41(10):805-813. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.07.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    65.
    Harris  JM, Whalley  H, Yates  S, Miller  P, Johnstone  EC, Lawrie  SM.  Abnormal cortical folding in high-risk individuals: a predictor of the development of schizophrenia?   Biol Psychiatry. 2004;56(3):182-189. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.04.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    66.
    Harris  JM, Yates  S, Miller  P, Best  JJK, Johnstone  EC, Lawrie  SM.  Gyrification in first-episode schizophrenia: a morphometric study.   Biol Psychiatry. 2004;55(2):141-147. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00789-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    67.
    Stanfield  AC, Moorhead  TWJ, Harris  JM, Owens  DGC, Lawrie  SM, Johnstone  EC.  Increased right prefrontal cortical folding in adolescents at risk of schizophrenia for cognitive reasons.   Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(1):80-85. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    68.
    Sasaki  M.  SPECT findings in autism spectrum disorders and medically refractory seizures.   Epilepsy Behav. 2015;47:167-171. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.10.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    69.
    Benavente-Fernández  I, Siddiqi  A, Miller  SP.  Socioeconomic status and brain injury in children born preterm: modifying neurodevelopmental outcome.   Pediatr Res. 2020;87(2):391-398. doi:10.1038/s41390-019-0646-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    70.
    Benavente-Fernández  I, Synnes  A, Grunau  RE,  et al.  Association of socioeconomic status and brain injury with neurodevelopmental outcomes of very preterm children.   JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192914-e192914. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2914PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    71.
    Kim  P, Evans  GW, Angstadt  M,  et al.  Effects of childhood poverty and chronic stress on emotion regulatory brain function in adulthood.   Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(46):18442-18447. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308240110PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    72.
    Kishiyama  MM, Boyce  WT, Jimenez  AM, Perry  LM, Knight  RT.  Socioeconomic disparities affect prefrontal function in children.   J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21(6):1106-1115. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21101PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    73.
    Papini  C, Palaniyappan  L, Kroll  J, Froudist-Walsh  S, Murray  RM, Nosarti  C.  Altered cortical gyrification in adults who were born very preterm and its associations with cognition and mental health.   bioRxiv. 2019. doi:10.1101/2019.12.13.871558Google Scholar
    74.
    Hendrickson  TJ, Mueller  BA, Sowell  ER,  et al.  Cortical gyrification is abnormal in children with prenatal alcohol exposure.   Neuroimage Clin. 2017;15:391-400. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2017.05.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    75.
    Cao  B, Mwangi  B, Passos  IC,  et al.  Lifespan gyrification trajectories of human brain in healthy individuals and patients with major psychiatric disorders.   Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):511. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-00582-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    76.
    DeCarli  C, Reed  BR, Jagust  W, Martinez  O, Ortega  M, Mungas  D.  Brain behavior relationships among African Americans, Whites, and Hispanics.   Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2008;22(4):382-391. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e318185e7fePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    77.
    Choi  YY, Lee  JJ, Choi  KY,  et al.  The aging slopes of brain structures vary by ethnicity and sex: evidence from a large magnetic resonance imaging dataset from a single scanner of cognitively healthy elderly people in Korea.   Front Aging Neurosci. 2020;12:233. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.00233PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×