ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2024
Association of genetic and sulcal traits with executive function in congenital heart disease.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Graph-based prototype inverse-projection for identifying cortical sulcal pattern abnormalities in congenital heart disease.Medical image analysis · 2025Article
- Foetal cortical expansion is associated with neurodevelopmental outcome at 2-years in congenital heart disease: a longitudinal follow-up study.EBioMedicine · 2025Article
- Noncoding variants and sulcal patterns in congenital heart disease: Machine learning to predict functional impact.iScience · 2025Article
- Structural Covariance Networks in the Fetal Brain Reveal Altered Neurodevelopment for Specific Subtypes of Congenital Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 15 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePersons with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disabilities, including impairments to executive function. Sulcal pattern features correlate with executive function in adolescents with single-ventricle heart disease and tetralogy of Fallot. However, the interaction of sulcal pattern features with genetic and participant factors in predicting executive dysfunction is unknown.
methodsWe studied sulcal pattern features, participant factors, and genetic risk for executive function impairment in a cohort with multiple CHD types using stepwise linear regression and machine learning.
resultsGenetic factors, including predicted damaging de novo or rare inherited variants in neurodevelopmental disabilities risk genes, apolipoprotein E genotype, and principal components of sulcal pattern features were associated with executive function measures after adjusting for age at testing, sex, mother's education, and biventricular versus single-ventricle CHD in a linear regression model. Using regression trees and bootstrap validation, younger participant age and larger alterations in sulcal pattern features were consistently identified as important predictors of decreased cognitive flexibility with left hemisphere graph topology often selected as the most important predictor. Inclusion of both sulcal pattern and genetic factors improved model fit compared to either alone.
interpretationWe conclude that sulcal measures remain important predictors of cognitive flexibility, and the model predicting executive outcomes is improved by inclusion of potential genetic sources of neurodevelopmental risk. If confirmed, measures of sulcal patterning may serve as early imaging biomarkers to identify those at heightened risk for future neurodevelopmental disabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.