OBJECTIVE: Typically, studies on outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI) have investigated whether a younger age at injury is associated with poorer recovery by comparing 2 age groups rather than participants injured across childhood. This study extended previous research by examining whether the influence of age on recovery fits an early vulnerability or critical developmental periods model. METHODS: Children with a TBI (n = 181) were categorized into 4 age-at-injury groups-infant, preschool, middle childhood, and late childhood--and were evaluated at least 2-years post-TBI on IQ. RESULTS: Overall, the middle childhood group had lower IQ scores across all domains. Infant and preschool groups performed below the late childhood group on nonverbal and processing speed domains. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, children injured in middle childhood demonstrated the poorest outcomes; this age potentially coincides with a critical period of brain and cognitive development.
OBJECTIVE: Typically, studies on outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI) have investigated whether a younger age at injury is associated with poorer recovery by comparing 2 age groups rather than participants injured across childhood. This study extended previous research by examining whether the influence of age on recovery fits an early vulnerability or critical developmental periods model. METHODS:Children with a TBI (n = 181) were categorized into 4 age-at-injury groups-infant, preschool, middle childhood, and late childhood--and were evaluated at least 2-years post-TBI on IQ. RESULTS: Overall, the middle childhood group had lower IQ scores across all domains. Infant and preschool groups performed below the late childhood group on nonverbal and processing speed domains. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, children injured in middle childhood demonstrated the poorest outcomes; this age potentially coincides with a critical period of brain and cognitive development.
Authors: Juliet Haarbauer-Krupa; Tadesse Haileyesus; Julie Gilchrist; Karin A Mack; Caitlin S Law; Andrew Joseph Journal: J Safety Res Date: 2019-06-21
Authors: Andrew R Mayer; Mayank Kaushal; Andrew B Dodd; Faith M Hanlon; Nicholas A Shaff; Rebekah Mannix; Christina L Master; John J Leddy; David Stephenson; Christopher J Wertz; Elizabeth M Suelzer; Kristy B Arbogast; Timothy B Meier Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Linda Ewing-Cobbs; Chad Parker Johnson; Jenifer Juranek; Dana DeMaster; Mary Prasad; Gerardo Duque; Larry Kramer; Charles S Cox; Paul R Swank Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Naoki Tajiri; Diana Hernandez; Sandra Acosta; Kazutaka Shinozuka; Hiroto Ishikawa; Jared Ehrhart; Theo Diamandis; Chiara Gonzales-Portillo; Mia C Borlongan; Jun Tan; Yuji Kaneko; Cesar V Borlongan Journal: Brain Res Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Nicholas P Ryan; Cathy Catroppa; Janine M Cooper; Richard Beare; Michael Ditchfield; Lee Coleman; Timothy Silk; Louise Crossley; Miriam H Beauchamp; Vicki A Anderson Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Fernanda Guilhaume-Correa; Shelby M Cansler; Emily M Shalosky; Michael D Goodman; Nathan K Evanson Journal: J Neurosci Res Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Emily L Dennis; Talin Babikian; Christopher C Giza; Paul M Thompson; Robert F Asarnow Journal: Neuroscientist Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 7.519