Psychosocial factors and hippocampal subfields: The Medea‐7T study

Abstract

Specific subfields within the hippocampus have shown vulnerability to chronic stress, highlighting the importance of looking regionally within the hippocampus to understand the role of psychosocial factors in the development of neurodegenerative diseases. A systematic review on psychosocial factors and hippocampal subfield volumes was performed and showed inconsistent results, highlighting the need for future studies to explore this relationship. The current study aimed to explore the association of psychosocial factors with hippocampal (subfield) volumes, using high‐field 7T MRI. Data were from the Memory Depression and Aging (Medea)‐7T study, which included 333 participants without dementia. Hippocampal subfields were automatically segmented from T2‐weighted images using ASHS software. Generalized linear models accounting for correlated outcomes were used to assess the association between subfields (i.e., entorhinal cortex, subiculum, Cornu Ammonis [CA]1, CA2, CA3, dentate gyrus, and tail) and each psychosocial factor (i.e., depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, childhood maltreatment, recent stressful life events, and social support), adjusted for age, sex, and intracranial volume. Neither depression nor anxiety was associated with specific hippocampal (subfield) volumes. A trend for lower total hippocampal volume was found in those reporting childhood maltreatment, and a trend for higher total hippocampal volume was found in those who experienced a recent stressful life event. Among subfields, low social support was associated with lower volume in the CA3 (B = −0.43, 95% CI: −0.72; −0.15). This study suggests possible differential effects among hippocampal (subfield) volumes and psychosocial factors.

An Effect of Chronic Negative Stress on Hippocampal Structures and Functional Connectivity in Patients with Depressive Disorder

“…A study in 2019 also found that early stress exposure increased the volumes of hippocampus, in particular within the CA and DG; 44 and another study showed a trend for higher total hippocampal volume in subjects who experienced stressful life events, yet a trend for lower total hippocampal volume in those who reported childhood maltreatment. 45 These reports exposed the effects of stress on hippocampal volume which also was expounded in our study, but effects may differ according to varied stress types. The chronic negative stress was focused in our study, and may have the trend for a higher hippocampal subfields volumes rather than the total hippocampus.…”

Machine Learning Prediction of Estimated Risk for Bipolar Disorders Using Hippocampal Subfield and Amygdala Nuclei Volumes

“…Data on present and lifetime use of cannabis was collected since it previously was associated with a smaller hippocampus [ 52 ] (no use/<1× month/~1× month/2–9× month/≥10× month). Early life adversities are typically associated with alterations of hippocampal subfield volumes [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ]. We estimated it using the total score of the Child Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) questionnaire, which consists of 25 five-point Likert scale items with five subscales on different traumatic experiences and three extra items on trivialization [ 57 ].…”

Cross-sectional field study comparing hippocampal subfields in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder with comorbid major depressive disorder, and adjustment disorder using routine clinical data

“…The HC is hypothesized to play a key role in the neuroendocrine stress response in processing trauma-related stimuli. Several studies have indicated that PTSD [for reviews, see del Casale et al (2022) ; Bromis et al (2018) ] and MDD [for a review, see Sun et al (2023) ] may lead to small HC volumes globally as well as specific morphological alterations in HC subfields (PTSD: Averill et al, 2017 ; Hayes et al, 2017 ; Chen et al, 2018 ; Postel et al, 2019 , 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; MDD: Brown et al, 2019 ; Han et al, 2019 ; Roddy et al, 2019 ; Yao et al, 2020 ; Twait et al, 2022 ).…”