Cited by 33Resilience and Mental HealthChild Abuse and TraumaStress Responses and Cortisol

Neurobiological correlates of resilience during childhood and adolescence – A systematic review

Open access
Zhang, Lu, Rakesh, Divyangana, Cropley, Vanessa, Whittle, Sarah·2023·Clinical Psychology Review

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Research examining the neurobiological mechanisms of resilience has grown rapidly over the past decade. However, there is vast heterogeneity in research study design, methods, and in how resilience is operationalized, making it difficult to gauge what we currently know about resilience biomarkers. This preregistered systematic review aimed to review and synthesize the extant literature to identify neurobiological correlates of resilience to adversity during childhood and adolescence. Literature searches on MEDLINE and PsycINFO yielded 3834 studies and a total of 49 studies were included in the final review. Findings were synthesized based on how resilience was conceptualized (e.g., absence of psychopathology, trait resilience), and where relevant, the type of outcome examined (e.g., internalizing symptoms, post-traumatic stress disorder). Our synthesis showed that findings were generally mixed. Nevertheless, some consistent findings suggest that resilience neural mechanisms may involve prefrontal and subcortical regions structure/activity, as well as connectivity between these regions. Given substantial heterogeneity in the definition and operationalization of resilience, more methodological consistency across studies is required for advancing knowledge in this field.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102333

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, L., Rakesh, D., Cropley, V., & Whittle, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Lu
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-11
Volume
105
Pages
102333
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386579977
Cited by
33
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
resilience, neurobiological correlates, childhood adversity, adolescence, prefrontal cortex, subcortical structures, neuronal connectivity, internalizing problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, trait resilience, psychopathology
MeSH terms
Adverse Childhood Experiences, Adolescent, Brain, Child, Humans, Resilience, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review