White matter connectomes at birth accurately predict cognitive abilities at age 2

Cognitive ability is an important predictor of mental health outcomes that is influenced by neurodevelopment. Evidence suggests that the foundational wiring of the human brain is in place by birth, and that the white matter (WM) connectome supports developing brain function. It is unknown, however, how the WM connectome at birth supports emergent cognition. In this study, a deep learning model was trained using cross-validation to classify full-term infants (n = 75) as scoring above or below the median at age 2 using WM connectomes generated from diffusion weighted magnetic resonance images at birth. Results from this model were used to predict individual cognitive scores. We additionally identified WM connections important for classification. The model was also evaluated in a separate set of preterm infants (n = 37) scanned at term-age equivalent. Findings revealed that WM connectomes at birth predicted 2-year cognitive score group with high accuracy in both full-term (89.5%) and preterm (83.8%) infants. Scores predicted by the model were strongly correlated with actual scores (r = 0.98 for full-term and r = 0.96 for preterm). Connections within the frontal lobe, and between the frontal lobe and other brain areas were found to be important for classification. This work suggests that WM connectomes at birth can accurately predict a child's 2-year cognitive group and individual score in full-term and preterm infants. The WM connectome at birth appears to be a useful neuroimaging biomarker of subsequent cognitive development that deserves further study

Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies

The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewers who evaluate their work. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers related to infant neuroimaging data collection, safety protocols, study planning, imaging sequences, decisions related to software and hardware, and data processing and sharing, while acknowledging both the accomplishments of the field and areas of much needed future advancements. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT\u27NG community and can act as a resource for both researchers and reviewers alike seeking a deeper understanding of the standards and tradeoffs involved in infant neuroimaging

Dear reviewers: responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies

The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewers who evaluate their work. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers related to infant neuroimaging data collection, safety protocols, study planning, imaging sequences, decisions related to software and hardware, and data processing and sharing, while acknowledging both the accomplishments of the field and areas of much needed future advancements. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT'NG community and can act as a resource for both researchers and reviewers alike seeking a deeper understanding of the standards and tradeoffs involved in infant neuroimaging.R01 MH104324 - NIMH NIH HHS; UL1 TR001863 - NCATS NIH HHS; P50 MH115716 - NIMH NIH HHS; K01 MH108741 - NIMH NIH HHS; TL1 TR001864 - NCATS NIH HHS; R01 MH118285 - NIMH NIH HHS; U01 MH110274 - NIMH NIH HHS; P50 MH100029 - NIMH NIH HHS; ZIA MH002782 - Intramural NIH HHS; R01 EB027147 - NIBIB NIH HHS; R01 MH119251 - NIMH NIH HHS; UL1 TR003015 - NCATS NIH HHS; F31 HD102156 - NICHD NIH HHS; KL2 TR003016 - NCATS NIH HHS; T32 MH018268 - NIMH NIH HHSPublished versio