Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28279917›Full record

ArticleDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2017

At risk of being risky: The relationship between "brain age" under emotional states and risk preference.

Marc D Rudolph, Oscar Miranda-Domínguez, Alexandra O Cohen, Kaitlyn Breiner, Laurence Steinberg, Richard J Bonnie, Elizabeth S Scott, Kim Taylor-Thompson, Jason Chein, Karla C Fettich and 5 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The beautiful adolescent brain: An evolutionary developmental perspective.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pitfalls in brain age analyses.Human brain mapping · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Marc D RudolphDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, Advanced Imaging Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
Oscar Miranda-DomínguezDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, Advanced Imaging Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
Alexandra O CohenSackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States.
Kaitlyn BreinerDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Laurence SteinbergDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Richard J BonnieUniversity of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
Elizabeth S ScottColumbia Law School, New York, NY, United States.
Kim Taylor-ThompsonNew York University School of Law, New York, NY, United States.
Jason CheinDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Karla C FettichDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Jennifer A RichesonDepartment of Psychology and Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States; Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven CT, United States.
Danielle V DellarcoSackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States.
Adriana GalvánDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
B J CaseySackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States; Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven CT, United States.
Damien A FairDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, Advanced Imaging Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States. Electronic address: faird@ohsu.edu.

Funding

Identification of outcome-based sub-populations using deep phenotyping and precision functional mapping across ADHD and ASDR01MH096773 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI DOSENBACH, NICO, FAIR, DAMIEN A · 2012 to 2024
$9.4M
Brain trajectories in ADHDR01MH115357 · NIMH · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI FAIR, DAMIEN A, NIGG, JOEL T · 2017 to 2021
$3.8M
Longitudinal brain development and clinical outcomes in ADHD from 7-17 yearsR56MH086654 · NIMH · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI FAIR, DAMIEN A, NIGG, JOEL T · 2016 to 2016
$770k
Functional Circuits as an Endophenotype for ADHD in ChildrenR00MH091238 · NIMH · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI FAIR, DAMIEN A · 2011 to 2013
$723k
Functional Circuits as an Endophenotype for ADHD in ChildrenK99MH091238 · NIMH · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI FAIR, DAMIEN A · 2010 to 2010
$83k
NIMH NIH HHS K99 MH091238NIMH NIH HHS R00 MH091238NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH096773NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH115357NIMH NIH HHS R56 MH086654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developmental differences regarding decision making are often reported in the absence of emotional stimuli and without context, failing to explain why some individuals are more likely to have a greater inclination toward risk. The current study (N=212; 10-25y) examined the influence of emotional context on underlying functional brain connectivity over development and its impact on risk preference. Using functional imaging data in a neutral brain-state we first identify the "brain age" of a given individual then validate it with an independent measure of cortical thickness. We then show, on average, that "brain age" across the group during the teen years has the propensity to look younger in emotional contexts. Further, we show this phenotype (i.e. a younger brain age in emotional contexts) relates to a group mean difference in risk perception - a pattern exemplified greatest in young-adults (ages 18-21). The results are suggestive of a specified functional brain phenotype that relates to being at "risk to be risky."

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBrainChildEmotionsFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRiskYoung AdultBrain ageEmotional stateMultivariatePredictionPseudo-resting state fMRIRisky behavior

Identifiers

PMID28279917
PMCPMC5849238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.