Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Marcus Richards MRC National Survey of Health and Development,
University College London, London WC1E 6BT
Correspondence to: M Richards, MRC
National Survey of Health and Development, University College London,
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, London WC1E 6BT m.richards{at}ucl.ac.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective:
To examine the association between birth
weight and cognitive function in the normal population.
Small size at birth is associated with a range of adverse health
outcomes,1 including poor cognitive
development,2 an effect that is largely unconfounded by
features of the family environment, such as socioeconomic status and
birth order. Although most cognitive studies focus on clinically low
birthweight groups, confirmation of this association across the full
birthweight range in the normal population is of particular interest,
since this would imply that explanatory factors are similarly
distributed in the general population. One early such population based
study found that verbal reasoning scores at age 11 increased with
increasing birth weight.3 This association was also
detected in early adulthood,4 although not in later
life.5
We examined the association between birth weight and cognitive function
in the normal population using data from the British 1946 birth cohort.
A particular advantage of this cohort is the use of repeated cognitive
assessments throughout life, beginning at age 8 years and extending to
age 43, thus allowing the investigation of relative change in cognitive
function according to birth weight. To investigate an outcome with
specific functional consequences, we also examined the association
between birth weight and educational attainment.
The 1946 birth cohort
Cognitive measures and educational attainment
Statistical methods
Missing data
Birth weight and cognitive function
Table 1.
Table 2.
Design:
A longitudinal, population based, birth cohort study.
Participants:
3900 males and females born in 1946.
Main outcome measures:
Cognitive function from
childhood to middle life (measured at ages 8, 11, 15, 26, and 43 years).
Results:
Birth weight was significantly and positively associated with cognitive ability at age 8 (with an estimated standard
deviation score of 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.59))
between the lowest and highest birthweight categories after sex,
father's social class, mother's education, and birth order were
controlled for. This association was evident across the normal
birthweight range (>2.5 kg) and so was not accounted for exclusively
by low birth weight. The association was also observed at ages 11, 15, and 26, and weakly at age 43, although these associations were
dependent on the association at age 8. Birth weight was also associated
with education, with those of higher birth weight more likely to have
achieved higher qualifications, and this effect was accounted for
partly by cognitive function at age 8.
Conclusions:
Birth weight was associated with
cognitive ability at age 8 in the general population, and in the normal birthweight range. The effect at this age largely explains associations between birth weight and cognitive function at subsequent ages. Similarly, the association between birth weight and education was
accounted for partly by earlier cognitive scores.
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Participants were drawn from the Medical Research Council's
national survey of health and development, a birth cohort study
stratified by social class and initially consisting of 5362 people
selected from all births that occurred in England, Scotland, and Wales
during one week in March 1946.6 Information about sociodemographic factors and medical, cognitive, and psychological function has been obtained at intervals by interview and
examination
most recently in 1989 at age 43, when the sample size was
3262; the sample is regarded as representative of the UK population
born legitimately and singly in the years immediately after the second world war.7
Various cognitive measures were used.
8 9
Children
were tested at age 8 on reading comprehension, word pronunciation, vocabulary, and non-verbal reasoning; at age 11 on verbal and non-verbal intelligence, arithmetic, word pronunciation, and
vocabulary; and at age 15 on verbal and non-verbal intelligence (the
AH4 test), reading comprehension, and mathematics. As adults they were
tested at age 26 on reading comprehension and at age 43 on verbal
memory (word list learning), timed letter search (speed and
accuracy).10 All scores for participants with a valid
score for each test were standardised to give a mean of 0 and a
standard deviation of 1. Global scores representing overall cognitive
function at ages 8, 11, 15, and 26 were obtained by setting the
standard deviation of the distribution of the sum of these scores to
one. Test scores at age 43 were kept separate. The highest educational
or training qualification achieved by age 26 was classified either as
ordinary secondary qualifications (O levels and their training
equivalents) or less, or as advanced secondary education (A levels and
their equivalents) or degree level or equivalent.
Birth weight was split into five categories (<2.51 kg, 2.51-3.00 kg, 3.01-3.50 kg, 3.51-4.00 kg, and 4.01- 5.00 kg). The
association between birth weight and cognitive function at age 8 was
investigated with regression models, with adjustment for sex, father's
social class, mother's education, birth order, and mother's age.
The relation between birthweight category and cognitive score was
tested for linearity. To test whether change in cognitive function
differed across the birthweight categories, each cognitive score (from
age 11 to age 43) in this adjusted model was further adjusted for the
score at the previous age (conditional model for change). All tests of
association between birth weight and cognitive function were also
carried out on the groups with normal birth weight (that is, >2.51 kg)
to check that any statistically significant effect was not driven by
the lowest birthweight category.
![]()
Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Seven hundred and sixty two cohort members had not undergone
cognitive testing at any age; 21 of these had missing information on
birth weight. Of the 4600 cohort members with at least one recorded
cognitive test score, 3900 (85%) had complete information on birth
weight and confounders and could therefore be included in the analyses.
Those with missing information had lower mean cognitive scores at ages
8 (P=0.09), 11 (P=0.02), 15 (P=0.05), and 26 (P=0.1), but not at age 43 (P>0.1 for all tests), compared with others. Among the 3900 included
in at least one model, those with a missing cognitive score at any age
were more likely to have a missing score at subsequent ages.
Furthermore, a lower test score at one age was associated with a
greater likelihood of a missing score at the following age.
Regression coefficients for the effect of birth weight grouped
into five categories on cognitive scores indicated increasing mean
cognitive function with increasing birth weight for the first four
birthweight categories, followed by a decrease in cognitive score at
the highest birthweight category at ages 8, 11, 15, and 26 (table 1).
At ages 8, 11, and 15 the significant association was still apparent
across the four normal birthweight categories (P<0.01 in all cases),
but the association with cognitive function at age 26 was due largely
to the difference in mean score between those of low birth weight and
those of normal birth weight (table 1). At age 43, birth weight had no
significant effect on any of the test scores (table
1).
|
Birth weight and educational attainment
Logistic regression showed a significant effect of birth weight on
education, with increasing birth weight being associated with higher
educational attainment (odds ratio for an increase in birthweight
category = 1.12; 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.20). As with the
cognitive tests, this effect became stronger on addition of the family
and social background confounders (1.16; 1.07 to 1.26) and was also
observed across the normal birthweight range. The effect was
substantially attenuated after the cognitive score at age 8 was added
to the model.
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In a large UK birth cohort, we found that that birth weight was associated with cognitive ability through childhood and early adulthood in the normal population, although the effect was less marked in midlife. Birth weight was significantly associated with cognitive function at age 8 years, with cognitive scores increasing across the four lowest birthweight categories, then declining at the highest birthweight category. Adjustment for sex, father's social class, mother's education, mother's age, and birth order strengthened this overall association, and the trend became more linear through raising the coefficient for the highest birthweight category. These results are broadly compatible with those of Record et al3 and support their suggestion that birth weight is related to cognitive performance independently of social background. Importantly, this association was observed within the normal birthweight range (that is, >2.5 kg) at ages 8, 11, and 15, suggesting that the significant results are not just accounted for by low birth weight in the normal population. Birth weight was also related to educational attainment at these ages, an association previously reported in 17 year olds born small for gestational age,11 thus providing evidence that the association between birth weight and cognition has functional implications.
The association between birth weight and cognitive function was maintained across adolescence (ages 11 and 15) and early adulthood (age 26), the latter confirming the results of Sorensen et al.4 Conditional regression modelling showed, however, that cognitive growth between ages 8 and 26 was similar across all birthweight groups. Thus, although the influence of birth weight on cognitive function was maintained into adulthood, this influence was largely driven by the effect of birth weight on cognition at age 8.
The evidence of a gradient with birth weight was much weaker at age 43, although the shift in the nature of the tests
namely, from the
psychometric attainment tests used earlier to the test of memory
means
that the results should be interpreted with caution. Martyn et al found
no association between birth weight and IQ in midlife to later
life.5 Adult environmental influences, particularly
educational and occupational attainment, may overshadow perinatal
factors by middle life. Evidence exists of such environmental overshadowing in this context in childhood.
12 13
Pathways
between early family background, adult educational and occupational
attainment, and midlife cognitive function are currently under
investigation in the national survey of health and development.
Limitations of study
Some limitations of the current study should be noted. Firstly,
data on gestational age was not collected, which limits the
interpretation of birth weight as an index of fetal growth in this
cohort. We are currently investigating postnatal growth14
as an explanatory factor in the current findings. Secondly, cohort
members with missing information on birth weight and confounders had
lower cognitive scores at ages eight, 11, 15, and 26 than those with
complete information. However, the unadjusted associations between
birth weight and cognitive score in analyses of cohort members with
data for birth weight and cognitive function but not for confounders
were similar to those for whom information on confounders was complete.
These findings suggest that the relation between birth weight and
cognitive function was not sensitive to the sample selection. Thirdly,
our analyses were adjusted for important features of the early family
background, particularly those strongly associated with cognitive
development, such as father's social class and parental education.
These are crude measures, however, of sociodemographic background,
encompassing a range of factors potentially important for birth weight,
such as smoking, mother's height, physical work, psychosocial stress, and nutrition.15 Thus we cannot rule out the possibility
that residual effects of social background remained after statistical adjustment.
Interpretation
Caution is needed in the interpretation of repeated tests of birth
weight with different outcomes, particularly when different numbers are
included in each analysis. The problem of assessing cognitive change
over time is compounded because there is no single cognitive test that
can be used throughout life, as cognitive measures must change with
cognitive development. Repeated measures models, unlike the conditional
regression models used here, are dependent on the outcome scale used,
and standardised scores may not be a realistic scaling in this respect
as they assume no cognitive growth with age, and no increased variation in scores with age occurs.16 Further investigation of
these data using such models is in progress. We took a more simple
approach here, considering the association between birth weight at the earliest time point then assessing the influence of birth weight on
subsequent relative changes in cognitive function. Regression to the
mean
17 18
occurs when fitting such
models, as they assume that the score at the earliest age is fixed
(that is, measured without error). However, for the measurement error
to have a substantial impact on the association between birth weight
and change in cognitive score presented here, the cognitive test scores
would have to be notably unreliable.
which in turn is
closely correlated with brain size19 and so is associated with childhood cognitive function.20 The most parsimonious
explanation for the current results, therefore, is that the relations
between these variables, established for comparisons between low and
normal birthweight children, also hold across the normal range in the general population. At the neurochemical level, birth weight is associated with insulin-like growth factors,21 and
interest has been growing in the role of glucose metabolism, insulin,
and insulin-like growth factors in the development of the central nervous system and cognitive function.
22 23
How these
processes are distributed in the population is not known. However,
three key risk factors for low birth weight
nutrition, smoking, and alcohol misuse15
all influence brain glucose
concentrations or the function of insulin-like growth
factors,
1 24 25
although the pathways are likely to be
complex. A reduction in birth weight after maternal starvation in the
Dutch famine cohort of the 1940s, for example, was not associated with
subsequent cognitive performance.26
|
What is already known on this topic
Low birth weight is associated with poor cognitive development Few studies have examined this association across the full birthweight range in the normal population What this study addsBirth weight is significantly associated with cognitive ability at age 8 years, through adolescence, and into early adulthood, independent of social background The associations between birth weight and cognitive function at ages 8, 11, and 15 are evident across the normal birthweight range (>2.5 kg) and so are not accounted for exclusively by low birth weight Birth weight is also associated with educational attainment, suggesting that the association between birth weight and cognition may have functional implications |
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Contributors: MR initiated and coordinated the formulation of the core study ideas, and RH, DK, and MEJW helped to develop these ideas. RH designed and performed the statistical analysis. The paper was written jointly by all authors. MR will act as guarantor for this paper.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: The Medical Research Council provided funding for the MRC national survey of health and development, and financial support for all authors of this article.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Barker DJP. Mothers, babies and health in later life. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. |
| 2. |
Breslau N.
Psychiatric sequelae of low birthweight.
Epidemiol Rev
1995;
17:
96-106 |
| 3. | Record RG, McKeown T, Edwards JH. The relation of measured intelligence to birth weight and duration of gestation. Ann Hum Genet 1969; 33: 71-79[Medline]. |
| 4. |
Sorensen HT, Sabroe S, Olsen J, Rothman KJ, Gilman MW, Fischer P.
Birth weight and cognitive function in young adult life: historical cohort study.
BMJ
1997;
315:
401-403 |
| 5. |
Martyn CN, Gale CR, Sayer AA, Fall C.
Growth in utero and cognitive function in adult life: follow up study of people born between 1920 and 1943.
BMJ
1996;
312:
1393-1396 |
| 6. | Wadsworth MEJ. The imprint of time: childhood, history and adult life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. |
| 7. |
Wadsworth MEJ, Mann SL, Rodgers B, Kuh DL, Hilder WS, Yusuf EJ.
Loss and representativeness in a 43 year follow-up of a national birth cohort.
J Epidemiol Community Health
1992;
46:
300-304 |
| 8. | Pigeon DA. Tests used in the 1954 and 1957 surveys. In: Douglas JWB, ed. The home and the school. London: Macgibbon and Kee, 1964. (Appendix 1.) |
| 9. | Pigeon DA. Details of the fifteen years tests. In: Douglas JWB, Ross JM, Simpson HR, eds. All our future. London: Davies, 1968. (Appendix 1.) |
| 10. |
Richards M, Kuh D, Hardy R, Wadsworth M.
Lifetime cognitive function and timing of the natural menopause.
Neurology
1999;
52:
308-314 |
| 11. | Paz I, Gale R, Laor A, Danon YL, Stevenson DK, Seidman DS. The cognitive outcome of full-term small for gestational age infants at late adolescence. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 452-456[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 12. | Fawer CL, Besnier S, Forcada M, Buclin T, Calame A. Influence of perinatal, developmental and environmental factors on cognitive abilities of preterm children without major impairments at 5 years. Early Hum Dev 1995; 43: 151-164[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 13. | Illsley R, Mitchell RG, eds. Low birth weight: a medical, psychological and social study. Chichester: John Wiley, 1984. |
| 14. |
Lucas A, Fewtrell MS, Cole TJ.
Fetal origins of adult disease the hypothesis revisited.
BMJ
1999;
319:
245-249 |
| 15. |
Kline J, Stein Z, Susser M.
Conception to birth epidemiology of prenatal development.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
|
| 16. | Plewis I. Statistical methods for understanding cognitive growth: a review, a synthesis and an application. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1996; 49: 25-42. |
| 17. |
Bland JM, Altman DG.
Regression towards the mean.
BMJ
1994;
308:
1499 |
| 18. |
Bland JM, Altman DG.
Some examples of regression to the mean.
BMJ
1994;
309:
780 |
| 19. | Cook RWI, Lucas A, Yudkin PLN, Pryse-Davies J. Head circumference as a index of brain weight in the fetus and newborn. Early Hum Dev 1977; 1: 145-149[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 20. | Nelson KB, Deutschberger J. Head size at one year as a predictor of four year IQ. Dev Med Child Neurol 1970; 12: 487-495[Medline]. |
| 21. |
Fall CHD, Pandit AN, Law CM, Yajnik CS, Clark PM, Breier B, et al.
Size at birth and plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 concentrations.
Arch Dis Child
1995;
73:
287-293 |
| 22. | De Pablo F, de la Rosa EJ. The developing CNS: a scenario for the action of proinsulin, insulin and insulin-like growth factors. Trends Neurosci 1995; 18: 143-150[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 23. |
Wickelgren I.
Tracking insulin to the mind.
Science
1998;
280:
517-519 |
| 24. | Eckstein LW, Shibley IA, Pennington JS, Carver FM, Pennington SN. Changes in brain glucose levels and glucose transporter protein isoforms in alcohol- or nicotine-treated chick embryos. Brain Res Dev Brain Res 1997; 103: 59-65[Medline]. |
| 25. | Singh SP, Ehmann S, Snyder AK. Ethanol-induced changes in insulin-like growth factors and IGF gene expression in the fetal brain. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1996; 212: 349-354[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 26. | Stein ZA, Susser M, Saenger G, Marolla F. Famine and human development: the Dutch hunger winter of 1944/45. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. |
(Accepted 20 October 2000)
Read all Rapid Responses