Susceptibility or Resilience to Maltreatment Can Be Explained by Specific Differences in Brain Network Architecture

Abstract

Background: Childhood maltreatment is a major risk factor for psychopathology. However, some maltreated individuals appear remarkably resilient to the psychiatric effects while manifesting the same array of brain abnormalities as maltreated individuals with psychopathology. Hence, a critical aim is to identify compensatory brain alterations that enable resilient individuals to maintain mental well-being despite alterations in stress-susceptible regions.Method: Network models were constructed from diffusion tensor imaging and tractography in physically healthy unmedicated 18-25-year-olds (n=342, n=192 maltreated) to develop network based explanatory models.Results: First, we determined that susceptible and resilient individuals had the same alterations in global fiber stream network architecture using two different definitions of resilience (i.e., 1 -no lifetime history of Axis I or II disorders, 2 -no clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, depression, anger-hostility or somatization). Second, we confirmed an a priori hypothesis that right amygdala nodal efficiency was lower in asymptomatic resilient than in susceptible participants or controls. Third, we identified 8 other nodes with reduced nodal efficiency in resilient individuals and showed that nodal efficiency moderated the relationship between maltreatment and psychopathology. Fourth, we found that models based on global network architecture and nodal efficiency could delineate group membership (control, susceptible, resilient) with 75%, 82% and 80% cross-validated accuracy.Conclusions: Together these findings suggest that sparse fiber networks with increased smallworldness following maltreatment render individuals vulnerable to psychopathology if *

Inaugural Editorial

“…Kirsch, Nemeroff, & Lippard (2020) discuss the relationship between early life adversity, neurobiological adaptations, and subsequent adolescent and adult substance use disorders, discussing the potential for improved prevention and treatment outcomes by identifying potential pathways involving genetic vulnerabilities associated with mood and anxiety disorders. Teicher, Ohashi, & Khan (2020) extend their previous research on a proposed network model to explain patterns of susceptibility or resilience to childhood adversity (Ohashi, Anderson, Bolger, Khan, McGreenery, & Teicher, 2019), showing that timing, type, and number of adverse experiences are predictive of psychiatric outcomes during late adolescence and early adulthood.…”

Additional Insights into the Relationship Between Brain Network Architecture and Susceptibility and Resilience to the Psychiatric Sequelae of Childhood Maltreatment

“…This was associated with reduced global efficiency, increased small worldness, and increased vulnerability to disruption (Ohashi, Anderson, Bolger, Khan, McGreenery, & Teicher, 2017b). Third, we then showed in an expanded dataset (N = 342) that asymptomatic maltreated individuals (without substance use or clinically significant symptoms on the Kellner Symptom Questionnaire (Kellner, 1987)) had the same array of abnormalities in global network architecture as maltreated individuals with clinically significant symptoms (Ohashi, Anderson, Bolger, Khan, McGreenery, & Teicher, 2019). Fourth, we found that resilient maltreated individuals had reduced nodal efficiency (N eff -ability to propagate information throughout the network) of their right amygdala relative to susceptible subjects and unexposed controls (Ohashi et al, 2019).…”

Measuring childhood maltreatment: Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure (MACE) scale

“…A Multiplicity score for the number of different types of maltreatments (range 0-10), where each type is required to be reported above a clinical cutoff level as calculated with reference to clinical cut-offs on CTQ (see also Statistics) v. A total Duration score, which is the number of years with exposure to at least one type of maltreatment above clinical cut-off as calculated with reference to clinical cut-offs on CTQ (range 0 to 18) vi. A total Sum-by-Duration score, derived by first making a sum score for each age level (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18) by adding up scores for the 10 subscales at that age, second, adding these scores for the 18 age levels, and, third, dividing by 18 to obtain a 0-100 range scale. That is, here we use the approach outlined for the MACE Sum score in point (iii) above separately for each age level, then add together these age-level sum scores for the 18 age levels, and finally divide by 18…”

“…Moreover, MACE has been indicated to account for substantially more of the variance in psychiatric symptom ratings compared to the CTQ and ACE [15]. US and German versions of the instrument have already been successfully employed in studies of psychiatric symptoms and a variety of other sequels of adverse childhood experiences, including sleep disruption, stress sensitivity and resilience, and altered brain functioning and structure [18][19][20][21][22][23].…”