Measurement matters: An individual differences examination of family socioeconomic factors, latent dimensions of children\u27s experiences, and resting state functional brain connectivity in the ABCD sample

The variation in experiences between high and low-socioeconomic status contexts are posited to play a crucial role in shaping the developing brain and may explain differences in child outcomes. Yet, examinations of SES and brain development have largely been limited to distal proxies of these experiences (e.g., income comparisons). The current study sought to disentangle the effects of multiple socioeconomic indices and dimensions of more proximal experiences on resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) in a sample of 7834 youth (aged 9-10 years) from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. We applied moderated nonlinear factor analysis (MNLFA) to establish measurement invariance among three latent environmental dimensions of experience (material/economic deprivation, caregiver social support, and psychosocial threat). Results revealed measurement biases as a function of child age, sex, racial group, family income, and parental education, which were statistically adjusted in the final MNLFA scores. Mixed-effects models demonstrated that socioeconomic indices and psychosocial threat differentially predicted variation in frontolimbic networks, and threat statistically moderated the association between income and connectivity between the dorsal and ventral attention networks. Findings illuminate the importance of reducing measurement biases to gain a more socioculturally-valid understanding of the complex and nuanced links between socioeconomic context, children\u27s experiences, and neurodevelopment

Mechanistic Studies of Ethylene Hydrophenylation Catalyzed by Bipyridyl Pt(II) Complexes

This article discusses mechanistic studies of ethylene hydrophenylation catalyzed by bipyridyl Pt(II) complexes

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Threat experiences moderate the link between hippocampus volume and depression symptoms prospectively in adolescence

Identifying neuroimaging risk markers for depression has been an elusive goal in psychopathology research. Despite this, smaller hippocampal volume has emerged as a potential risk marker for depression, with recent research suggesting this association is moderated by family income. The current pre-registered study aimed to replicate and extend these findings by examining the moderating role of family income and three dimensions of environmental experience on the link between hippocampus volume and later depression. Data were drawn from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study and were comprised of 6693 youth aged 9–10 years at baseline. Results indicated that psychosocial threat moderated the association between right hippocampus volume and depression symptoms two years later, such that a negative association was evident in low-threat environments (std. beta=0.15, 95% CI [0.05, 0.24]). This interaction remained significant when baseline depression symptoms were included as a covariate, though only in youth endorsing 1 or more depression symptoms at baseline (β = 0.13, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.22]). These results suggest that hippocampus volume may not be a consistent correlate of depression symptoms in high risk environments and emphasize the importance of including measures of environmental heterogeneity when seeking risk markers for depression