Adversity and adolescent brain development: differential associations with grey and white matter across two longitudinal cohorts

Le résumé fourni par la source

Globally, 60% of the population has experienced at least one type of adversity (e.g., emotional abuse, bullying) across infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Such experiences have been linked to an increased risk for mental health disorders. Changes in brain structure following experiences of childhood adversity have been hypothesised to be a mechanistic pathway explaining later mental health issues. However, to understand how changes in brain structure might mediate the effects of adversity, it is essential to identify which underlying neuronal processes may be affected by different types of adverse experiences. A key open question is whether grey or white matter is more vulnerable to adversity, as these two structures reflect distinct neurobiological mechanisms. This study investigated whether differences in trajectories of grey and white matter development during adolescence can be explained by exposure to different types of adversity. We applied the Adverse Adolescent Experiences Framework (Pollmann et al., 2025) categorising adversity into four levels: Intrapersonal (e.g., accidents), Caregiver (e.g., emotional neglect), Peer (e.g., bullying), and Community (e.g., neighbourhood safety). Exposure to each of the four factors was estimated through principal components analyses. We analysed two large longitudinal datasets: the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study (~12,000 adolescents measured at ages 10, 12, and 14) and the IMAGEN study (~1,400 adolescents measured at ages 14, 19, and 22). Using latent growth curve models, we captured individual differences in brain development by estimating baseline levels (intercepts) and rates of change (slopes) for total grey matter volume and mean white matter fractional anisotropy. In both cohorts, we found significant interindividual variability in baseline levels and rates of change for both grey matter volume and fractional anisotropy. Caregiver, Peer, and Community adversities were negatively associated only with the intercepts of grey matter volume and white matter fractional anisotropy. Importantly, associations differed between grey and white matter. In ABCD, Peer and Community adversities were more strongly associated with grey matter volume intercepts. In contrast, in IMAGEN, Caregiver, Peer and Community adversities were more strongly linked to white matter fractional anisotropy intercepts. This suggests that adversity has unique associations with grey and white matter, rather than exerting a uniform influence on brain structure. By demonstrating that different environments generate distinct biological associations with brain maturation, this work underscores the need to consider both grey and white matter when assessing the neurodevelopmental pathways to outcomes across the lifespan.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.