Cited by 234Child Abuse and TraumaStress Responses and CortisolChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 56 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Reduced nucleus accumbens reactivity and adolescent depression following early-life stress

Open access
Goff, B., Gee, D.G., Telzer, E.H., Humphreys, K.L., Gabard-Durnam, L., Flannery, J., Tottenham, N.·2013·Neuroscience

Abstract

Depression is a common outcome for those having experienced early-life stress (ELS). For those individuals, depression typically increases during adolescence and appears to endure into adulthood, suggesting alterations in the development of brain systems involved in depression. Developmentally, the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), a limbic structure associated with reward learning and motivation, typically undergoes dramatic functional change during adolescence; therefore, age-related changes in NAcc function may underlie increases in depression in adolescence following ELS. The current study examined the effects of ELS in 38 previously institutionalized children and adolescents in comparison to a group of 31 youths without a history of ELS. Consistent with previous research, the findings showed that depression was higher in adolescents than children with a history of ELS. Additionally, functional magnetic resonance imaging results showed atypical NAcc development, where the ELS group did not show a typical increase in NAcc reactivity during adolescence. Consequently, the ELS group showed NAcc hypoactivation during adolescence, and lower NAcc reactivity was correlated with higher depression scores. The results have important implications for understanding how ELS may influence increases in depression via neural development during the transition to adolescence and highlight the importance of identifying at-risk individuals in childhood, a potential critical period for depression-targeted intervention.

Checked 2026-10-05 · 2 references not checked yet

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.12.010

Cites

72 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

14 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 56 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 62 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
38 of 38
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The anatomically defined region used in the analyses corresponds to the nucleus accumbens.

    “Although fMRI does not have enough resolution to identify the NAcc with confidence, our analyses focused on an anatomically defined region consistent with the location of the NAcc. For brevity's sake, we refer to this region as the NAcc throughout the manuscript.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Institutional care in orphanages abroad constitutes early-life stress.

    “We examined children and adolescents with and without a history of ELS (institutional care in orphanages abroad)”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1,64)=7.66, p < .007

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .007 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .007. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .007 · recomputed p = .007

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(29)=2.33, p < .01

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .027 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .027

2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 64) = 7.66reported p < .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(1,64)=7.66, p < .007”

  • Doesn’t add upt(29) = 2.33reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .027

    “t(29)=2.33, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 63) = 38.66reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,63)=38.66, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 63) = 5.46reported p < .025 · recomputed p = .023

    “F(1,63)=5.46, p < .025”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 6.25reported p < .025 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(1,36)=6.25, p < .025”

  • ConsistentF(1, 64) = 21.19reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,64)=21.19, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 6.77reported p < .015 · recomputed p = .012

    “F(1,59) =6.77, p < .015”

  • Consistentt(35) = 2.13reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .040

    “t(35)=2.13, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 5.96reported p < .025 · recomputed p = .018

    “F(1,59)=5.96, p < .025”

  • ConsistentF(1, 64) = 10.89reported p < .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1,64)=10.89, p < .002”

  • Consistentt(27) = 2.69reported p < .015 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(27)=2.69, p < .015”

  • Consistentt(39) = 0.66reported n.s. · recomputed p = .513

    “t(39)=.66, ns.”

  • ConsistentF(1, 65) = 7.03reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “F(1,65)=7.03, p = .01”

  • Consistentt(27) = 2.26reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .032

    “t(27)=2.26, p < .05”

14 of 14

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Child task comparison implies more children than enrolled

    Minor

    A paired comparison with 39 degrees of freedom implies 40 children, but the final sample contained only 39 children. Excluding one child's responses could not increase that count.

  • Anxiety ANOVA reports incompatible degrees of freedom

    Minor

    The reported main effect and interaction are from the same 2×2 anxiety analysis, but their denominator degrees of freedom are 64 and 67. They should have the same denominator degrees of freedom.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 74 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–102 of 102

Metadata

Authors
Goff, B., Gee, D. G., Telzer, E. H., Humphreys, K. L., Gabard-Durnam, L., Flannery, J., & Tottenham, N.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Tottenham, N.
Venue
Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
249
Pages
129-138
ISSN
0306-4522 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008443876
Cited by
234
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5
FWCI
9.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH091864)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
early life stress, adolescent depression, nucleus accumbens, institutionalized children, neural development, adolescence, reward processing, motivation, limbic system
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Child, Child, Preschool, Depression, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nucleus Accumbens, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Stress, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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