Cited by 171Child Abuse and TraumaStress Responses and CortisolPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Meta-analysis of associations between childhood adversity and hippocampus and amygdala volume in non-clinical and general population samples

Open access
Calem, Maria, Bromis, Konstantinos, McGuire, Philip, Morgan, Craig, Kempton, Matthew J·2017·NeuroImage Clinical

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies of psychiatric populations have reported associations between childhood adversity and volumes of stress-related brain structures. This meta-analysis investigated these associations in non-clinical samples and therefore independent of the effects of severe mental health difficulties and their treatment. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched for magnetic resonance imaging studies measuring brain structure in adults with and without childhood adversity. Fifteen eligible papers (1781 participants) reporting hippocampal volumes and/or amygdala volumes were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: = 0.124). This association differed depending on whether studies included participants with some psychopathology, though this may be due to differences in the type of adversity these studies examined. There was no strong evidence of any differences in amygdala volume. DISCUSSION: Childhood adversity may have only a modest impact on stress-related brain structures in those without significant mental health difficulties.

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.nicl.2017.02.016

Cites

74 of 74 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

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?

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
Calem, M., Bromis, K., McGuire, P., Morgan, C., & Kempton, M. J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • National Technical University of Athens (GR)
Corresponding author
Kempton, Matthew J
Venue
NeuroImage Clinical
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017
Volume
14
Pages
471-479
ISSN
2213-1582 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2590133125
Cited by
171
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage Clinical (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • NIHR CLAHRC South London Fee Support Award (NIHR CLAHRC-2013-10022)
  • MRC Career Development Award (MR/J008915/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
childhood adversity, hippocampal volume, amygdala volume, non-clinical population, general population, psychopathology, brain structure, neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Child, Child Abuse, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Poverty, Sex Characteristics, MEDLINE

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