Childhood abuse linked to differences in adult brain structure, especially among young women, study finds
Childhood abuse may be associated with measurable differences in the adult brain, particularly among young women, according to a study of 3,711 people from eight countries. Researchers found that greater reported abuse was linked to differences in the thickness, surface area and volume of certain brain regions. The findings describe patterns across groups—not a brain scan that can identify abuse in an individual.
The research, published in Biological Psychiatry, examined MRI scans and childhood maltreatment questionnaires collected through the international ENIGMA research consortium. Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles, and collaborating institutions studied data from 25 sites. The participants included 1,389 people with major depressive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder and 2,322 healthy controls.
What did the brain scans show?
The team compared measurements of each participant’s brain with age-related reference values. They examined the cortex—the brain’s outer layer—for differences in thickness and surface area, as well as the volume of structures beneath it. Participants reported childhood experiences of physical, emotional and sexual abuse, and physical and emotional neglect. The researchers analyzed abuse and neglect separately.
Among young adults, greater reported abuse was associated with differences across several regions rather than one uniform change. These included larger-than-expected volumes in the thalamus and pallidum and differences in parts of the cingulate and frontal cortex. Some regions were thinner or smaller, while others were thicker or larger. That variation matters: the study does not support the idea that childhood trauma leaves one consistent physical mark on the brain.
The strongest overall associations appeared among young women. Some patterns were also observed in older women, while men showed a different set of associations. Neglect was linked to a more limited pattern of differences than abuse in the researchers’ analyses, particularly among men. These findings do not mean that boys or men are unaffected by maltreatment.
Why were there no significant findings in children?
The researchers did not find statistically significant associations in the study’s pediatric group, which included 349 participants. They cautioned that this smaller group may not have provided enough statistical power to detect subtle differences. The result should not be read as evidence that childhood maltreatment has no effects on children’s brains.
The differences between age groups also cannot show exactly when a brain pattern emerged or how it changed over time. Each participant was assessed at one point, rather than followed from childhood into adulthood.
Does childhood abuse cause a permanent brain ‘scar’?
“Scar” is a metaphor, not a diagnosis or proof of permanent damage. The study found correlations between recalled childhood experiences and brain measurements. Because the data were cross-sectional, it cannot establish that abuse caused the observed differences, that those differences are irreversible, or that they determine a person’s mental health or abilities.
The researchers could not fully account for factors such as socioeconomic circumstances, symptom severity and medication use across all the study sites. Participants also reported their childhood experiences retrospectively, and the questionnaire did not capture every form of early adversity.
UCLA psychology professor Tiffany Ho, the study’s corresponding author, and lead researcher Haley Wang said further work is needed to understand why associations appeared stronger in women. They raised possible explanations, including differences in exposure to particular forms of trauma, but the study does not settle the question.
The findings add detail to research on childhood maltreatment and later mental health risks. They do not offer a test for an individual’s trauma history or predict what any one person will experience. Instead, they suggest that studies of early adversity need to consider the type of maltreatment, age and sex rather than searching for a single brain-wide effect.
