4.6 Article

Neonatal Hypoxia, Hippocampal Atrophy, and Memory Impairment: Evidence of a Causal Sequence

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1469-1476

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht332

关键词

developmental amnesia; hippocampal volumes; hypoxia

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G03000117/65439]
  2. Central and East London Research Network [5177]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services
  4. Research Councils UK
  5. Medical Research Council [G1002276, G0300117] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [G0300117, G1002276] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neonates treated for acute respiratory failure experience episodes of hypoxia. The hippocampus, a structure essential for memory, is particularly vulnerable to such insults. Hence, some neonates undergoing treatment for acute respiratory failure might sustain bilateral hippocampal pathology early in life and memory problems later in childhood. We investigated this possibility in a cohort of 40 children who had been treated neonatally for acute respiratory failure but were free of overt neurological impairment. The cohort had mean hippocampal volumes (HVs) significantly below normal control values, memory scores significantly below the standard population means, and memory quotients significantly below those predicted by their full scale IQs. Brain white matter volume also fell below the volume of the controls, but brain gray matter volumes and scores on nonmnemonic neuropsychological tests were within the normal range. Stepwise linear regression models revealed that the cohort's HVs were predictive of degree of memory impairment, and gestational age at treatment was predictive of HVs: the younger the age, the greater the atrophy. We conclude that many neonates treated for acute respiratory failure sustain significant hippocampal atrophy as a result of the associated hypoxia and, consequently, show deficient memory later in life.

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