4.7 Article

Region-specific growth restriction of brain following preterm birth

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep33995

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology [C24591533, C15K09733]
  3. Japan Science and Technology Agency
  4. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [B01-24119004, H27-001]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26730023] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Regional brain sizes of very-preterm infants at term-equivalent age differ from those of term-born peers, which have been linked with later cognitive impairments. However, dependence of regional brain volume loss on gestational age has not been studied in detail. To investigate the spatial pattern of brain growth in neonates without destructive brain lesions, head MRI of 189 neonates with a wide range of gestational age (24-42 weeks gestation) was assessed using simple metrics measurements. Dependence of MRI findings on gestational age at birth (Age(birth)) and the corrected age at MRI scan (Age(MRI)) were assessed. The head circumference was positively correlated with Age(MRI), but not Age(birth). The bi-parietal width, deep grey matter area and the trans-cerebellar diameter were positively correlated with both Age(birth) and Age(MRI). The callosal thickness (positive), atrial width of lateral ventricle (negative) and the inter-hemispheric distance (negative) were exclusively correlated with Age(birth). The callosal thickness and cerebral/cerebellar transverse diameters showed predominant dependence on Age(birth) over Age(MRI), suggesting that brain growth after preterm-birth was considerably restricted or even became negligible compared with that in utero. Such growth restriction after preterm birth may extensively affect relatively more matured infants, considering the linear relationships observed between brain sizes and Age(birth).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据