4.6 Article

Total and Regional Brain Volumes in a Population-Based Normative Sample from 4 to 18 Years: The NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 1-12

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr018

关键词

adolescents; brain volumes; children; healthy; MRI

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse
  3. National Institute of Mental Health
  4. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [N01-HD02-3343, N01-MH9-0002, N01-NS-9-2314, -2315, -2316, -2317, -2319, -2320, NS34783]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using a population-based sampling strategy, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Normal Brain Development compiled a longitudinal normative reference database of neuroimaging and correlated clinical/behavioral data from a demographically representative sample of healthy children and adolescents aged newborn through early adulthood. The present paper reports brain volume data for 325 children, ages 4.5-18 years, from the first cross-sectional time point. Measures included volumes of whole-brain gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM), left and right lateral ventricles, frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital lobe GM and WM, subcortical GM (thalamus, caudate, putamen, and globus pallidus), cerebellum, and brainstem. Associations with cross-sectional age, sex, family income, parental education, and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated. Key observations are: 1) age-related decreases in lobar GM most prominent in parietal and occipital cortex; 2) age-related increases in lobar WM, greatest in occipital, followed by the temporal lobe; 3) age-related trajectories predominantly curvilinear in females, but linear in males; and 4) small systematic associations of brain tissue volumes with BMI but not with IQ, family income, or parental education. These findings constitute a normative reference on regional brain volumes in children and adolescents.

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

4.6
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