Maternal Perinatal Stress Trajectories and Negative Affect and Amygdala Development in Offspring.

OBJECTIVE: Maternal psychological stress during pregnancy is a common risk factor for psychiatric disorders in offspring, but little is known about how heterogeneity of stress trajectories during pregnancy affect brain systems and behavioral phenotypes in infancy. This study was designed to address this gap in knowledge. METHODS: Maternal anxiety, stress, and depression were assessed at multiple time points during pregnancy in two independent low-risk mother-infant cohorts (N=115 and N=2,156). Trajectories in maternal stress levels in relation to infant negative affect were examined in both cohorts. Neonatal amygdala resting-state functional connectivity MRI was examined in a subset of one cohort (N=60) to explore the potential relationship between maternal stress trajectories and brain systems in infants relevant to negative affect. RESULTS: Four distinct trajectory clusters, characterized by changing patterns of stress over time, and two magnitude clusters, characterized by severity of stress, were identified in the original mother-infant cohort (N=115). The magnitude clusters were not associated with infant outcomes. The trajectory characterized by increasing stress in late pregnancy was associated with blunted development of infant negative affect. This relationship was replicated in the second, larger cohort (N=2,156). In addition, the trajectories that included increasing or peak maternal stress in late pregnancy were related to stronger neonatal amygdala functional connectivity to the anterior insula and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in the exploratory analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The trajectory of maternal stress appears to be important for offspring brain and behavioral development. Understanding heterogeneity in trajectories of maternal stress and their influence on infant brain and behavioral development is critical to developing targeted interventions.

Heterogeneity of executive function revealed by a functional random forest approach across ADHD and ASD.

BACKGROUND: Those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention, causing significant hardships for families and society. A potential mechanism involved in these conditions is atypical executive function (EF). Inconsistent findings highlight that EF features may be shared or distinct across ADHD and ASD. With ADHD and ASD each also being heterogeneous, we hypothesized that there may be nested subgroups across disorders with shared or unique underlying mechanisms. METHODS: Participants (N = 130) included adolescents aged 7-16 with ASD (n = 64) and ADHD (n = 66). Typically developing (TD) participants (n = 28) were included for a comparative secondary sub-group analysis. Parents completed the K-SADS and youth completed an extended battery of executive and other cognitive measures. A two stage hybrid machine learning tool called functional random forest (FRF) was applied as a classification approach and then subsequently to subgroup identification. We input 43 EF variables to the classification step, a supervised random forest procedure in which the features estimated either hyperactive or inattentive ADHD symptoms per model. The FRF then produced proximity matrices and identified optimal subgroups via the infomap algorithm (a type of community detection derived from graph theory). Resting state functional connectivity MRI (rs-fMRI) was used to evaluate the neurobiological validity of the resulting subgroups. RESULTS: Both hyperactive (Mean absolute error (MAE) = 0.72, Null model MAE = 0.8826, (t(58) = -4.9, p < .001) and inattentive (MAE = 0.7, Null model MAE = 0.85, t(58) = -4.4, p < .001) symptoms were predicted better than chance by the EF features selected. Subgroup identification was robust (Hyperactive: Q = 0.2356, p < .001; Inattentive: Q = 0.2350, p < .001). Two subgroups representing severe and mild symptomology were identified for each symptom domain. Neuroimaging data revealed that the subgroups and TD participants significantly differed within and between multiple functional brain networks, but no consistent "severity" patterns of over or under connectivity were observed between subgroups and TD. CONCLUSION: The FRF estimated hyperactive/inattentive symptoms and identified 2 distinct subgroups per model, revealing distinct neurocognitive profiles of Severe and Mild EF performance per model. Differences in functional connectivity between subgroups did not appear to follow a severity pattern based on symptom expression, suggesting a more complex mechanistic interaction that cannot be attributed to symptom presentation alone.