Parental education and income are linked to offspring cortical brain structure and psychopathology at 9-11 years

Abstract

A childs socioeconomic environment can shape central aspects of their life, including vulnerability to mental disorders. Negative environmental influences in youth may interfere with the extensive and dynamic brain development occurring at this time. Indeed, there are numerous yet diverging reports of associations between parental socioeconomic status (SES) and child cortical brain morphometry. Most of these studies have used single metric- or unimodal analyses that downplay the probable scenario that separate sources of variability, from numerous independent biological pathways, are the basis for SES-related cortical differences in youth. To comprehensively capture such variability, using data from 9758 children aged 8.9-11.1 years from the ABCD Study, we employed linked independent component analysis (LICA) and fused vertex-wise cortical thickness, surface area, curvature and grey-/white-matter contrast (GWC). LICA revealed 70 uni- and multimodal components. We then assessed the linear relationships between parental education, parental income and each of the cortical components, controlling for age, sex, genetic ancestry, and family relatedness. We also assessed whether cortical structure moderated the negative relationships between parental SES and child general psychopathology. Parental education and income were both associated with larger surface area and higher GWC globally, in addition to local increases in surface area and to a lesser extent bidirectional GWC and cortical thickness patterns. The negative relation between parental income and child psychopathology were attenuated in children with a multimodal pattern of larger frontal- and smaller occipital surface area, and lower medial occipital thickness and GWC. In conclusion, structural brain MRI is sensitive to SES-related variability in childhood, and in low-income families, having a more developed cortex across MRI metrics, is beneficial for mental health.

How early environment influences the developing brain and long‐term mental health

“…By contrast, the data‐driven approach by Norbom et al. (2024) indicates that effects of environmental adversity on the brain are not region‐ or modality‐specific. However, this study lacked a prospective component, thereby leaving causal inference to speculation.…”

“…What stands out about the present study of Norbom et al. (2024) is that they applied a multivariate method, linked independent component analysis (LICA; LLera Arenas et al., 2018), that is most sensitive to detect such expected non‐specific effects across combinations of regional neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, surface area, and grey‐white matter contrast.…”

“…Norbom et al. (2024) report a study of parental education levels and income on general psychopathology in 9758 children aged 9–11. They corroborate previous accounts that socio‐economic adversity is (subtly but significantly) associated with mental health problems in children (Reiss, 2013), and they further investigated the potential role of neuroanatomical variation in individual vulnerability and resilience to socio‐economic adversity.…”

“…The second article, by Norbom et al. (2024), identified anatomical brain patterns in children that are associated with their parent's income levels and educational attainment, and that may be potential markers of resilience to socio‐economic adversity. These studies complement other recent research (Xu et al., 2023) that looking for links between external risk factors for psychopathology in childhood and individual brain differences, to understand how adverse experiences in childhood can potentially become entrenched to have a long‐lasting impact on mental health throughout life.…”

Environmental and neurodevelopmental contributors to youth mental illness

“…A number of studies have investigated cortical and subcortical structure as possible diathesis or susceptibility markers [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]. Most studies have focussed on the adolescent period, while some have investigated infants [54,56].…”