Cited by 70Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Development of brain networks and relevance of environmental and genetic factors: A systematic review

Richmond, Sally, Johnson, Katherine A., Seal, Marc L., Allen, Nicholas B., Whittle, Sarah·2016·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

This study conducted a systematic review to synthesize findings on the development of functional and structural brain networks from the prenatal to late adolescent period. In addition, evidence for environmental and genetic influences on the development of brain networks was reviewed. Ninety two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Diffusion MRI findings indicated that clustering decreases, local and global efficiency increase and modularity stabilizes or decreases with age. Structural covariance findings indicated that local efficiency, global efficiency and modularity, may stabilize in adolescence. Findings for resting-state functional MRI were mixed. Few studies have investigated genetic or environmental influences on development of structural or functional networks. For functional networks, genetic effects have been reported with few significant environmental factors. While no studies of this nature were found for structural networks, other research has provided evidence of age-related changes in heritability of white matter volume, fractional anisotropy, and cortical thickness. Further research is required to understand the development of brain networks and the relevance of environmental and genetic factors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.024

Cites

167 of 167 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Structural networks of white matter and resting-state functional networks each have considerable genetic components in adults.

    “structural networks of white matter and resting-state functional networks each have considerable genetic components43.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richmond, S., Johnson, K. A., Seal, M. L., Allen, N. B., & Whittle, S.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Whittle, Sarah
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
71
Pages
215-239
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2514054620
Cited by
70
References
167
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Postgraduate Award
  • NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1007716)
  • Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
brain network development, functional brain networks, structural brain networks, adolescence, prenatal development, environmental influences, genetic factors, network efficiency, network modularity, structural covariance, resting-state functional connectivity, heritability, white matter, fractional anisotropy, cortical thickness
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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