Pubertal timing and functional neurodevelopmental alterations independently mediate the effect of family conflict on adolescent psychopathology

Mediating effect of pubertal stages on the family environment and neurodevelopment: An open-data replication and multiverse analysis of an ABCD Study®

“…These decisions can be considered as ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ ( Simmons et al, 2011 ). While the decisions in Thijssen et al (2020) were consistent with the theory that motivated the study, other studies measuring environmental experiences in the ABCD study (as we, Demidenko et al (2021) , and others ( Gonzalez et al, 2020 ; Ip et al, 2022 ; Petrican et al, 2021 ; Taylor et al, 2020 ) have done may reasonably impose different decisions that may contribute to different results and conclusions. Thus, given the rich higher-order model in Thijssen et al (2020) , we first perform a replication of the original study using the full baseline data.…”

“…To date, investigations using the ABCD study data have drawn upon different measures of the family environment and puberty when studying neurodevelopment. For instance, studies focused on neurodevelopment have used latent factors of the family environment ( Thijssen et al, 2020 , 2022 ), bio-psycho-social ecologies ( Gonzalez et al, 2020 ), neighborhood and family income/stress ( Demidenko et al, 2021 ; Ip et al, 2022 ; Sripada et al, 2021 ; Taylor et al, 2020 ) and material deprivation/threat/social support ( DeJoseph et al, 2022 ; Petrican et al, 2021 ), or individual scales of family-to-needs ratios ( Gonzalez et al, 2020 ; Rakesh et al, 2021), poverty levels ( Ellwood-Lowe et al, 2021 ), parental education ( Rakesh et al, 2021a , b ), area deprivation indices (Rakesh et al, 2021; Rakesh et al, 2021) and parental acceptance (Rakesh et al, 2021). As for measures of pubertal development (see reviews regarding measures and correspondence of pubertal scales: Cheng et al (2021) and Herting et al (2021) ), published works using ABCD data have used parent-reported pubertal development ( Demidenko et al, 2021 ; McNeilly et al, 2021 ; Thijssen et al, 2020 , 2022 ) or youth/parent reported averages of pubertal development ( Petrican et al, 2021 ).…”

“…For instance, studies focused on neurodevelopment have used latent factors of the family environment ( Thijssen et al, 2020 , 2022 ), bio-psycho-social ecologies ( Gonzalez et al, 2020 ), neighborhood and family income/stress ( Demidenko et al, 2021 ; Ip et al, 2022 ; Sripada et al, 2021 ; Taylor et al, 2020 ) and material deprivation/threat/social support ( DeJoseph et al, 2022 ; Petrican et al, 2021 ), or individual scales of family-to-needs ratios ( Gonzalez et al, 2020 ; Rakesh et al, 2021), poverty levels ( Ellwood-Lowe et al, 2021 ), parental education ( Rakesh et al, 2021a , b ), area deprivation indices (Rakesh et al, 2021; Rakesh et al, 2021) and parental acceptance (Rakesh et al, 2021). As for measures of pubertal development (see reviews regarding measures and correspondence of pubertal scales: Cheng et al (2021) and Herting et al (2021) ), published works using ABCD data have used parent-reported pubertal development ( Demidenko et al, 2021 ; McNeilly et al, 2021 ; Thijssen et al, 2020 , 2022 ) or youth/parent reported averages of pubertal development ( Petrican et al, 2021 ). Given variations in the analytic choices regarding measures of the family environment and puberty, the overall goal of the current analysis is to use a multiverse approach to understand the nuanced associations among stressful family environmental experiences, puberty and neurodevelopment when using broad measures (i.e., latent factors) that are comprised of multiple scales as well as specific measures (i.e., individual scales) that are based on individual scales.…”

Subiculum–BNST structural connectivity in humans and macaques

“…Methods to achieve this include the application of advanced ultra-high field MRI techniques specifically developed to analyse hippocampal subfields (e.g., Hodgetts et al., 2017 ), or ultra- high resolution dMRI applied to post-mortem macaque brains (e.g., Sébille et al., 2019 ) alongside novel polysynaptic tracer experiments ( Xu et al., 2020 ). Although we did not find any associations with our principal components relating to dispositional negativity or alcohol use, differences may yet be found when studying clinical populations (e.g., Cardenas et al., 2013 ), the impact of chronic early life stress ( Petrican et al., 2021 ), or physiological and behavioural/cognitive biomarkers of stress-responding (e.g., Allen et al., 2017 ). In general, though we describe in humans and macaques the existence of a subiculum-BNST connection previously identified in rats, the appreciation of potential species differences demonstrated here has implications for the generalisability of rodent research to the understanding of human stress-related functional anatomy and its disorders.…”

Subiculum – BNST Structural Connectivity in Humans and Macaques

“…Methods to achieve this include the application of advanced ultra-high field MRI techniques specifically developed to analyse hippocampal subfields (e.g., Hodgetts et al, 2017), or ultra-high resolution dMRI applied to post-mortem macaque brains (e.g., Sébille et al, 2019). Although we did not find any associations with our principal components relating to dispositional negativity or alcohol use, differences may yet be found when studying clinical populations (e.g., Cardenas et al, 2013), the impact of chronic early life stress (Petrican et al, 2021), or physiological and behavioural/cognitive biomarkers of stress-responding (e.g., Allen et al, 2017). In general, though we describe in humans and macaques the existence of a subiculum-BNST connection previously identified in rats, the appreciation of potential species differences demonstrated here has implications for the generalisability of rodent research to the understanding of human stress-related functional anatomy and its disorders.…”