The effect of very preterm birth on the Five-Factor Model of personality traits: A meta-analysis of individual participant data

Abstract

There is mixed evidence on personality differences among those born very preterm or with very low birth weight (VP/VLBW). This meta-analysis of individual participant data aimed to examine differences in personality traits between VP/VLBW (n = 568) and term-born (n = 1,060) adults, and the role of neonatal characteristics and neurosensory impairments in childhood, which have not been previously investigated. Six studies were identified from two research consortia and a systematic search of the literature (PubMed and Scopus); studies were eligible if they included VP/VLBW and term-born adults followed from birth and assessed personality using the Five-Factor Model. Risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally not a concern apart from the use of self-reported measures and the rate of follow-up. Using a one-stage approach, VP/VLBW scored lower on extraversion and openness and higher on neuroticism and agreeableness than term-born participants after adjusting for sex and parental education. Within the VP/VLBW group, those with bronchopulmonary dysplasia scored lower on extraversion and higher on neuroticism, with similar findings after removing participants with neurosensory impairments. Altogether, these findings suggest that a proportion of the effect of VP/VLBW birth on personality may be attributed to neonatal morbidities and altered brain development, although other confounding factors require further research.

Plain language summary

Adults who were born very prematurely may have different personality compared to adults who were born at full-term. We combined evidence from six different studies to investigate whether these two groups of adults differ in their personality. Furthermore, we also explored the reasons why adults born prematurely may have different personality, such as medical conditions at birth or disabilities in childhood. We primarily identified these studies from a group of research institutes focusing on adults born prematurely, but we also searched the literature for any additional studies that might have been missed. Only studies that recruited both people born prematurely and people who were born at full-term, followed their development into adulthood, and assessed personality across five areas (neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness) were eligible to be included. The studies we included were generally not considered to be biased, apart from the issue that personality was self-reported by the participants, and not all participants who were recruited stayed in the study. We used a statistical technique to combine and analyze data from all studies and found that adults who were born prematurely were less extraverted and open to new experiences, but scored higher on neuroticism and agreeableness, after considering possible sex differences and their parents’ education. Some of these personality differences may be explained by certain medical conditions at birth. In summary, these findings seem to suggest that adults born prematurely may have different personality compared to adults born at full-term, but more research is needed to understand the reasons behind this.

Keywords

personality Five-Factor Model VP/VLBW individual participant data neurosensory impairments

Introduction

Personality traits can be broadly defined as characteristics of the individual that reflect their consistent patterns of thinking, feelings, and behaving (Funder, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1987, 2008). The Five-Factor Model is one of the most widely used and comprehensive taxonomies of personality traits that proposes that individual differences in personality can be best captured using five broad traits of neuroticism (e.g., prone to experience negative emotions), extraversion (e.g., being outgoing and sociable), openness to experience (e.g., being imaginative and open to new experiences), agreeableness (e.g., trusting and polite), and conscientiousness (e.g., being thorough and goal oriented) (John et al., 2008).

Over the past decades, several theories have been advanced about how individual differences in personality traits might be associated with biological processes, primarily with the functions of the brain (Cloninger et al., 1993; Depue & Collins, 1999; DeYoung, 2015; Eysenck, 1967; Gray, 1982). However, the majority of these studies relied on neuroimaging studies, which often used relatively small and cross-sectional samples (DeYoung & Blain, 2020). In this paper, we propose another way to investigate predictors of personality traits by using special populations at significant neurobiological risk—those born very preterm or with very low birth weight (VP/VLBW; <32 weeks/<1500 g). We propose to compare personality traits of VP/VLBW with those of contemporary full-term (>37 weeks gestation) control groups to determine how VP/VLBW, with its attendant biological risk and altered development, is associated with differences in personality.

In the following sections, we will briefly provide an overview of the characteristics of VP/VLBW birth, its implication on brain development, and areas of functioning including personality; briefly review the evidence regarding personality differences in the VP/VLBW population; and propose a way of using individual participant data (IPD) from longitudinal birth cohort studies to help understand individual differences in personality.

VP/VLBW birth and implications for personality development

Around 10.6% of global births are preterm (<37 weeks gestation), and of those, 15% are considered to be very preterm (VP; <32 weeks gestation) or very low birth weight (VLBW; <1,500 g) (Chawanpaiboon et al., 2019). VP/VLBW birth is associated with a number of neonatal complications that may require substantial and prolonged support in intensive care units, and survivors more often suffer a range of brain injuries and alterations in subsequent brain development lasting into adulthood (Bäuml et al., 2015; Costeloe et al., 2012; de Kieviet et al., 2012; Hadaya & Nosarti, 2020; Meng et al., 2016; Volpe, 2009; Wolke et al., 2019). Some of these alterations include white matter injury and reduced gray and white matter in the thalamus and striatum, as well as differences in functional connectivity in cortical and subcortical areas (Bäuml et al., 2015; Meng et al., 2016; Volpe, 2009). A recent meta-analysis contributed further evidence that VP/VLBW adults showed smaller cortical and subcortical volumes compared to term-borns that may explain the lack of catch-up in brain development in adulthood (Kelly et al., 2023). These brain injuries and subsequent alterations in brain development are implicated in a number of functional outcomes, with strong evidence of associations with cognitive and motor performance, and moderate associations with behavioral and emotional problems (Cheong et al., 2020; Eves et al., 2020; Inder et al., 2023; Wolke et al., 2019).

Recent research suggests that alterations in brain development may also have important consequences for personality (DeYoung & Blain, 2020; Dubois et al., 2020). For example, VP/VLBW adults show reduced amygdala volumes in adulthood, which in typically developing adults play a crucial role in the brain’s emotional and stress response system (Schmitz-Koep et al., 2021), and have been associated with higher neuroticism and lower extraversion (Cremers et al., 2011; Holmes et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2020; Kaczkurkin et al., 2016). Openness to experience (openness), characterized by a tendency to seek out new experiences and associated with outcomes such as creativity and mental flexibility, has been associated with larger prefrontal cortex and increased gray matter volume, as well as measures of cognitive function (i.e., IQ) (Abu Raya et al., 2023), all of which are reduced in VP/VLBW adults (Inder et al., 2023; Kelly et al., 2023). Fewer research studies exist on the relationship between altered brain development and agreeableness and conscientiousness. Gray matter volume and white matter integrity have been implicated in some studies (DeYoung & Blain, 2020; Kapogiannis et al., 2013; Riccelli et al., 2017; Xu & Potenza, 2012), but with less certainty compared to other traits, and it remains unclear to what extent brain injury and subsequent alterations in brain development resulting from VP/VLBW birth may relate to these two personality traits.

Personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born adults

Given that VP/VLBW birth is associated with significant brain injury and alterations in brain development, which may be implicated in the development of personality, it is plausible that VP/VLBW adults may also show differences on personality traits compared to term-born adults who do not experience the same neurobiological risks. There is some evidence from longitudinal birth cohort studies that VP/VLBW adults scored more highly in neuroticism and agreeableness and lower in extraversion compared to their term-born peers (Allin et al., 2006; Eryigit-Madzwamuse, Strauss et al., 2015; Hertz et al., 2013; Lyall et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2008; Waxman et al., 2013) even after accounting for two important predictors of personality differences in the literature, sex, and parental education (Schmitt et al., 2008; Sutin et al., 2017). This is consistent with the direction of effect that would be expected when considering the evidence on the association between brain development and personality (i.e., reduced volume associated with higher neuroticism and lower extraversion). However, these individual studies often had small sample sizes (VP/VLBW being a rare event), and some studies also used different measures of personality (e.g., Eysenck Personality Questionnaire) which did not assess other personality traits such as openness and conscientiousness.

Of the few studies that did examine openness and conscientiousness using the Five-Factor Model, mixed findings have been reported. One study found lower openness and higher conscientiousness in VLBW adults (Pesonen et al., 2008), but this was not replicated in other studies (Eryigit-Madzwamuse, Strauss et al., 2015; Hertz et al., 2013). Lower openness may be expected given its association with cortical volumes and cognitive functioning (Abu Raya et al., 2023), which are both reduced in the VP/VLBW population (Inder et al., 2023; Kelly et al., 2023; Wolke et al., 2019). However, results for conscientiousness require further investigation as there has been less research on the role of brain development in conscientiousness, and therefore weaker evidence for an effect of VP/VLBW birth on this personality trait.

While these studies offer some evidence that VP/VLBW individuals score differently on some personality traits compared to term-born adults, factors that may explain these differences in the VP/VLBW population, such as neonatal characteristics and complications specific to this population, have not been examined. For example, those born VP/VLBW are more likely to have lower birth weight for their gestational age, which may indicate intrauterine growth restriction (Zeitlin et al., 2000), and is associated with further altered brain development compared to those born appropriate for gestational age (Simões et al., 2017). VP/VLBW infants are also at increased risk of neonatal complications such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia—a chronic lung disease that requires supplemental oxygen treatment (Hedderich et al., 2020)—which may contribute to brain injury of the immature brain (Neubauer et al., 2015; Schmidt, 2003; Siffel et al., 2021). Furthermore, VP/VLBW infants are also more likely to have complications which may result in delivery through elective or emergency caesarean section (Zeitlin et al., 2010). In term-born infants, this has been associated with increased neurodevelopmental challenges including delays in motor skills, difficulties in social and communication skills, and autism spectrum disorder (Curran et al., 2015; Al Khalaf et al., 2015), although evidence in VP/VLBW populations remain mixed (Blake et al., 2021). The factors that are associated with altered brain development may thus help explain individual differences in personality scores in the VP/VLBW population. These same factors are also associated with qualitatively more severe neurosensory impairments in childhood, such as cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, or cognitive impairments (Draper et al., 2020; Eves et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2009; Marlow et al., 2005; Wolke et al., 2019). To summarize, previous studies in the VP/VLBW population have focused on just describing personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born adults. To advance what factors may associate with personality traits, it will be important to examine the contributions of neonatal characteristics and complications on personality traits. Furthermore, are personality differences in the VP/VLBW population associated with widely altered brain development rather than severe neurological insult; that is, do differences remain after excluding those with neurosensory impairments?

Current study

The aim of this study was to utilize the power of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to examine differences in personality traits (outcome of interest) between VP/VLBW (population and exposure) and term-born individuals (comparator). This is part of a collection of IPD meta-analyses which investigated VP/VLBW and other functional outcomes in adulthood (i.e., IQ) using data from the same research consortium (Eves et al., 2021). An IPD meta-analysis overcomes challenges with traditional meta-analysis of aggregate data from published studies and reduces publication bias by including both published and unpublished data (Burke et al., 2017; Debray et al., 2015). Furthermore, an IPD benefits from having increased statistical power to perform subgroup analysis (Eves et al., 2021; Lambert et al., 2002), to examine whether personality differences in the VP/VLBW population may be additionally explained by other risk factors.

The following three research objectives were pursued: first, we examined differences in each personality trait between VP/VLBW and term-born individuals, to investigate whether VP/VLBW adults show differences in personality traits relative to term-born individuals. In line with previous research and the expected direction of effect from the association between altered brain development and personality, we hypothesized that VP/VLBW individuals would score lower on extraversion and higher on neuroticism compared to term-born individuals, but uncertain on the direction of effect for the other personality traits given the mixed findings in the literature. To reduce potential confounding bias, we adjusted for the effects of sex and parental education (as a proxy for socio-economic status), given that both have been shown to be important predictors of personality traits in previous research (Schmitt et al., 2008; Sutin et al., 2017).

Second, we investigated the contribution of neonatal characteristics (i.e., gestational age, birth weight, and delivery mode) and complications (i.e., bronchopulmonary dysplasia)—which may act as proxy measures indicating the severity of possible alterations in brain development—in explaining differences in personality scores within the VP/VLBW population, and hypothesize that lower gestational age and birth weight and caesarean section (instead of vaginal) as well as the presence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (indicating more severe complications and associated with altered brain development), would be associated with lower scores on extraversion and openness, and higher scores on neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Lastly, as VP/VLBW birth is associated with impairment and functional disabilities in childhood that may impact personality traits, we repeated the above analyses by excluding VP/VLBW participants with childhood neurosensory impairments to examine to what extent the association between VP/VLBW birth or neonatal characteristics/complications and personality traits remain after excluding those with moderate to severe disabilities.

Methods

The protocol is registered at the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42020162046 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020162046). This study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for individual participant data (Stewart et al., 2015).

Eligibility criteria and search strategy

Eligibility criteria were considered in relation to the PICO (population, intervention/exposure, comparator, and outcome) framework. Cohorts were eligible for inclusion if they: (1) included VP/VLBW participants (both the population and exposure); (2) included term-born participants in the same study (comparator/control group), and prospectively followed both groups from birth into adulthood (18 years or older); and (3) assessed personality using the Five-Factor Model (outcome). Cohorts were initially identified from the RECAP-preterm (Research on European Children and Adults Born Preterm, https://recap-preterm.eu/) and APIC (Adults Born Preterm International Collaboration, https://www.apic-preterm.org/) consortia, two large research collaborations across Europe, North America, and Australasia, which the authors were also members of. The two consortia included 13 cohort studies; all studies received ethical approval in their respective country and participants provided written informed consent.

We also conducted a literature search to identify other cohorts outside RECAP/APIC that were eligible for inclusion. We searched PubMed using the following keywords: personality[Title/Abstract] AND (preterm[Title/Abstract] OR low birth weight[Title/Abstract]) AND adult*[Title/Abstract]. The search was performed up to October 2020, and an updated search was carried out to November 2023. We further searched Scopus up to November 2023 using the same terms within the article title, abstract and keywords section (personality AND (preterm OR low birth weight) AND adult*).

Study selection, data extraction, and harmonization

For eligible studies within the RECAP/APIC consortia, data dictionaries for neonatal measures and adult outcomes were obtained from each cohort, and those eligible for inclusion were contacted for involvement in the study. Two authors (YL and MM) examined the data dictionaries to ensure all relevant cohorts were identified.

Two authors (YL and AR) also examined the eligibility of studies identified from the literature search, and any disagreements were resolved via discussion. Relevant studies identified through the literature search were contacted to request individual participant data and combined with the RECAP/APIC studies.

Data were transferred under signed grant agreements and individual data transfer agreements to the University of Warwick. Item-level data were requested where possible.

Personality assessment

Personality was the main outcome and assessed across five broad traits within the Five-Factor Model: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. All assessments were self-reported by participants in adulthood. Two main personality measures were considered: the Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John et al., 1991) and the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) (McCrae & Costa, 1985).

The BFI was developed by John et al. (1991) and contained 44 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree. A short version, the BFI-10, was also developed subsequently and contained two items for each personality trait. These items were selected based on a number of criteria including item-total correlations and factor loadings. The BFI-10 has been validated in both the United States and Germany using the English and German versions (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998; Rammstedt et al., 2013; Rammstedt & John, 2007).

The NEO-PI was developed by Costa and McCrae (1989) and contained 181 items rated on a similar 5-point Likert scale to the BFI. As well as assessing the five broad personality traits, items were also designed to assess 18 specific facets within the five personality domains. The NEO-PI has been translated and validated in multiple languages, such as the NESTA, a 181-item authorized Finnish version (Hämäläinen, 1994). Variations of the NEO-PI also include the revised NEO-PI (NEO-PI-R; 240 items) (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; 60 items) (Costa & McCrae, 1989), and the revised version of the NEO-FFI (NEO-FFI-R; 60 items), where 14 items from the NEO-PI was replaced by items from the NEO-PI-R (McCrae & Costa, 2004).

The comparability of the BFI and NEO-PI have been examined in the literature: the majority of items on the BFI-10 were found to be moderately correlated with the relevant scales on the NEO-PI-R, with stronger correlation between the two measures on neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness (r = .50–.56) and weaker correlation for openness and agreeableness (r = .40) (Rammstedt & John, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2007). When the full BFI scale was compared with the NEO-PI-R, stronger correlation was seen with agreeableness (r = .76) (Miller et al., 2011), suggesting that the weaker correlation found between the BFI-10 and NEO-PI-R may be due to the loss of information from the reduction of items in this domain (Rammstedt & John, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2007).

Item-level data were extracted from all cohorts included in the study if available, and mean scores were calculated for each of the five personality traits, with higher scores indicating higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Cronbach’s alpha was used to estimate internal consistency or reliability of each of the five personality traits (if three or more items were used). When only two items were used to assess a personality domain, then Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated instead, and if a weak correlation was found (defined as r < .25), then only the item which did not require reverse coding was used to represent scores on that domain, rather than calculating the average. Mean scores were subsequently transformed into z-scores using the mean and standard deviation of term-born participants as the reference within each cohort, so that results in the VP/VLBW population can be interpreted as being relative to term-born individuals.

Main variables used in the analysis

Predictors

VP/VLBW vs term-born groups

The main predictor of interest was VP/VLBW birth obtained from birth records. VP/VLBW birth was defined as gestational age below 32 completed weeks or birth weight below 1,500 g. Healthy term-born participants were specified by each cohort and had gestational age equal to or greater than 37 weeks.

Covariates available for the whole population

Sex

Male (as determined at birth) was the reference group. This was included as a covariate in the study as there is evidence to suggest that males and females show different personality profiles (Schmitt et al., 2017).

Parental educational level

Classified as low, medium, or high according to the ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) classification, where low education level is equivalent to ISCED level 0 to 2, medium education level equivalent to ISCED level 3 to 5, and high education level (reference group) equivalent to ISCED level 6 to 8 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012). This was reported either during participants’ childhood or in adulthood if data was not available in childhood and was used as a proxy measure for parental education level in childhood. Maternal education was used where possible, otherwise parental education (combined maternal and paternal) was used.

Predictors specific to VP/VLBW population

Gestational age

Gestational age is calculated as completed weeks, with lower age indicating potentially more severe altered brain development.

Birth weight for gestational age

Determined using the Fenton reference (Fenton & Kim, 2013), where sex-specific z-scores were calculated from LMS (lambda, Mu, and Sigma) parameters generated using the Fenton growth reference chart (Fenton & Kim, 2013; Fenton & Sauve, 2007)

Delivery mode

Mode of delivery was categorized as either vaginal delivery or caesarean section, with vaginal delivery as the reference group.

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia

The presence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia was defined as receipt of supplemental oxygen either for more than 28 days after birth or still at 36 weeks postmenstrual age depending on the study.

Neurosensory impairments in childhood

This was a composite measure which consisted of having any of the following: any cerebral palsy, visual impairment (blind/any visual disability vs not blind or no visual disability), hearing impairment defined as deafness that could not be corrected by hearing aids, and cognitive disability defined as scoring less than 70 in a standardized IQ (intelligent quotient) test in childhood, or a proxy measure for cognitive disability was used if childhood IQ was not available. This was a dichotomous variable with either no impairments or the presence of any impairment.

IPD integrity and risk of bias

Data were checked for completeness and any issues such as the coding of items were resolved by communicating with the study investigators. Two authors (YL and MM) used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Wells et al., 2012), which is the recommended Cochrane tool, to assess the quality of each study (Supplementary Materials, Table S1), and any disagreements were resolved through discussions. We had access to all data from cohorts within the RECAP and APIC consortium; therefore, selective outcome reporting was generally not a problem. We further performed a secondary analysis to include aggregate data from the Danish cohort study as individual-level data were not available.

Statistical analyses

Primary analysis (one-stage IPD)

Statistical analyses were carried out using R version 3.6.3. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model one-stage IPD approach, where all data are analyzed in a single step with added random effects to account for differences between cohorts (Burke et al., 2017). This has been shown to benefit from increased statistical power compared to a two-stage approach, especially when covariates are included in the model (Kontopantelis, 2018), or when studies have small sample sizes (Riley et al., 2023), and allows the detection of individual-level factors (Eves et al., 2021; Tierney et al., 2015). This approach has been previously used in another IPD meta-analysis which investigated VP/VLBW and IQ in adulthood using data from the same research consortium (Eves et al., 2021).

For our first research objective, we examined unadjusted standardized mean differences between VP/VLBW and term-born participants for each trait, using the R package “lme4” (Bates et al., 2015). VP/VLBW birth was entered as a fixed effect, and cohort-level information (year of study, age of assessments, and rates of attrition) were entered as random effects in a random intercept model (nested by cohort-level information). We further adjusted the model for sex and parental education and examined the interaction between VP/VLBW birth and sex/parental education. For our second research objective, we conducted subgroup analyses within the VP/VLBW population to examine the effects of neonatal characteristics (gestational age, birth weight z-scores, and delivery mode), neonatal complications (bronchopulmonary dysplasia) on each trait in the VP/VLBW group, adjusted for sex, and parental education. For our third research objective, we repeated the above subgroup analyses after removing VP/VLBW participants who had neurosensory impairments in childhood.

Missing data on any predictor variables were handled using multiple imputation by chained equation (“mice”) in R (Buuren & Groothuis-oudshoorn, 2011), with 40 imputed datasets. Only data on parental education, delivery mode and bronchopulmonary dysplasia were missing; therefore, only these variables were imputed. Results were pooled together using the “pool()” function in R, which combined estimates from all imputed datasets (Buuren & Groothuis-oudshoorn, 2011). Overall, the percentage of missing data imputed was 19.9% (see Table S2 for number of cases imputed for each cohort).

Heterogeneity was assessed in the one-stage IPD using τ₀₀ and σ² (variance components), where larger values of τ₀₀ indicate larger between-cohort variance, and larger values of σ² indicate larger residual variance (Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998).

Secondary analysis (two-stage IPD)

We further performed two-stage meta-analysis by including aggregate data from studies for which raw data were not available. We performed a two-stage meta-analysis using the R package “metafor” and fitted a random effect model using effect sizes from each study. Findings are visualized using forest plots. Heterogeneity was assessed in the two-stage IPD using I², which measures the percentage of variation across different cohorts due to heterogeneity rather than chance (Deeks et al., 2019). This measurement of heterogeneity is different to the one-stage meta-analysis, which estimates the proportion of total variance in the underlying distribution of true effect sizes, whereas the I² measures the percentage of variability that’s not caused by chance alone (Huang, 2023). Interpretation of I² was based on the Cochrane handbook, where 0%–40% suggest little heterogeneity, 30%–60% suggest moderate heterogeneity, and 50%–90% substantial heterogeneity (Deeks et al., 2019).

Robustness analysis

To check whether different definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia may affect our findings, we further repeated analyses within the VP/VLBW population by removing cohorts which used a different definition (i.e., oxygen supply at 36 weeks postmenstrual age) compared to others (i.e., supply of oxygen for more than 28 days after birth).

We also conducted a two-stage IPD using only cohorts included in the one-stage IPD, to check whether findings remained similar using different methodologies.

Deviations from pre-registration

Risk-taking and delinquent behaviors were originally proposed to be secondary outcomes. However, delays in data transfer agreements led to a lack of time available within the funding period to complete the project; therefore, these secondary outcomes were not investigated.

We originally proposed to investigate sex differences in personality as a separate research question. However, sex was included as a covariate instead of a predictor, which is in line with our original aim of accounting for the role of sex, but instead focuses on whether differences in personality between VP/VLBW and term-born adults remain after controlling for the effect of sex (rather than examining sex differences in personality per se). We additionally included parental education as a covariate given its role in personality in the literature.

Lastly, we excluded VP/VLBW participants with neurosensory impairments in childhood, which differed from our original hypothesis of investigating the moderating role of neurosensory impairments. Neurosensory impairments in childhood were a composite measure consisting of multiple indicators, which makes interpretation difficult given the heterogeneous nature of the group. Therefore, rather than including it as a variable in the analyses, we instead repeated our analyses by removing participants with neurosensory impairments, to check whether personality differences remain even after excluding participants with any neurosensory impairments.

Results

Sample description

There were 13 studies within the RECAP/APIC consortia, of which five met the inclusion criteria (eight did not assess personality in adulthood in the VP/VLBW population using the Five-Factor Model). A search of the PubMed and Scopus databases identified 133 records (after de-duplication), of which the full texts of 10 records were assessed for eligibility, and four met the inclusion criteria. Six unique studies in total were eligible for inclusion (three were duplicates which appeared in both the RECAP/APIC consortia as well as the literature search) (Figure 1). A description of these studies can be found in Table 1. Of these six studies, three were identified from the RECAP/APIC consortia only: the Arvo Ylppö Longitudinal study (AYLS) (Heinonen et al., 2008; Lano, 2002; Riegel & Betke, 1995), the ESTER preterm birth study (Matinolli et al., 2017; Sipola-Leppänen et al., 2015), and the EPICure study (Marlow et al., 2005; Wood et al., 2000); two were identified from both the RECAP/APIC consortia and the literature search: the Bavarian Longitudinal Study (BLS) (Eryigit-Madzwamuse, Strauss et al., 2015; Wolke & Meyer, 1999), and the Helsinki Study of Very Low Birth Weight Adults (HeSVA) (Hovi et al., 2007; Kaseva et al., 2012; Pesonen et al., 2008). A further study was identified from the literature search only: the Danish 1974–1976 and 1980–1982 cohorts (Hertz et al., 2013). The authors of this Danish study were contacted to obtain individual-level data, however these were not available as the original records were destroyed in accord with data protection; individual data from the Danish registry are never shared outside Denmark, so only published aggregate data were included.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of eligible cohorts included in the IPD meta-analysis.

Table 1.

Description of cohorts included in the IPD meta-analysis.

Source	Cohort	Country	Year of birth	Age of assessment	Type of population	Personality questionnaire used	Initial VP/VLBW surviving to discharge	VP/VLBW eligible in adulthood^a	VP/VLBW assessed in adulthood	No. of VP/VLBW assessed on personality	No. of term-born participants (>37 weeks/>3,500 g)^b
RECAP/APIC	AYLS	Finland	1985–1986	25.5	Preterm birth <37 weeks	NEO-FFI (short version of NEO-PI-R) and additional 14 items from NEO-FFI-R	108	68	35	27	305
Eryigit-Madzwamuse; Strauss et al., 2015; RECAP/APIC	BLS	Germany	1985–1986	26	VP (<32 weeks)/VLBW (<1500 g)	BFI-10	510	411	260	200	197
RECAP/APIC	EPICure	UK/Ireland	1995	19	EP (<26 weeks)	BFI-10	315	306	129	115	62
RECAP/APIC	ESTER	Finland	1986	23	Preterm birth <37 weeks	NESTA (adaptation of NEO-PI)	NA	77	77	69	328
Pesonen et al. (2008); Kaseva et al. (2012); RECAP/APIC	HeSVA	Finland	1978–1985	25	VLBW (<1500 g))	NESTA (adaptation of NEO-PI)	334	254	165	157	168
Hertz et al. (2013)	Danish cohort (2 cohorts included)	Denmark	1974–1976; 1980–1982	32–34; 26–28	VP (<32 weeks)	NEO-FFI	NA	1974–1976 (150); 1980–1982 (150)	N/A	1974–1976 (124); 1980–1982 (103)	1974–1976 (104); 1980–1982 (101)

^aEligibility defined as participants who were available for follow-up in adulthood.

^bTerm-born classified using 37 weeks gestation as HeSVA and EPICure did not recruit term-born controls at birth; therefore, birth weight data were not available.

Notes: BFI-10: The Big Five Inventory-10; IPD = individual participant data; NEO-FFI: NEO Five-Factor Inventory; NA: not applicable; NEO-PI: NEO Personality Inventory; VP/VLBW: very preterm or very low birth weight.

In total, 1,628 participants had data on personality traits in adulthood across the five cohorts with available individual-level data, of which 568 (34.9%) were born VP/VLBW. Both the BLS and EPICure cohorts assessed personality using the BFI-10, using the German and English version, respectively. ESTER and HeSVA used the NESTA (Finnish version of the NEO-PI), where some items were directly translated into Finnish and others replaced with culturally appropriate items (Hämäläinen, 1994). AYLS and the Danish cohort assessed personality using the NEO-FFI, but AYLS contained an additional 14 items taken from the NEO-FFI-R (Aluja et al., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha showed acceptable to excellent internal consistency across the five personality traits in AYLS, ESTER and HeSVA cohorts (α = .63–.94) (see Supplementary Materials, Table S3). As the BLS and EPICure cohorts only assessed each personality trait using two items (apart from agreeableness in EPICure which comprised of 3 items), Pearson correlation coefficient was used to calculate the strength of association between them (Supplementary Materials, Table S4). A weak correlation (r < .25) was found for agreeableness in BLS and openness in EPICure; thus, only one of the items (the item which did not require reverse coding) was used rather than calculating the average.

Parental education was assessed in childhood in AYLS, BLS, and EPICure, and in adulthood in ESTER and HeSVA, and all studies used maternal education apart from ESTER which used combined maternal and paternal education. The distribution of parental education level differed between the two groups, with fewer parents of VP/VLBW participants having high educational attainment (Table 2). The distribution of variables in each cohort and the correlation between variables can be found in Supplementary Materials (Tables S5 and S6). Birth weight and gestational age were moderately correlated with each other (lower birth weight correlating with lower gestational age), and delivery mode (caesarean section) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia also showed a small to moderate correlation with birth weight and gestational age (Table S6).

Table 2.

Chi-squared test of sex, parental education, and age differences between VP/VLBW and term-born participants in all cohorts (N = 1,628).

	VP/VLBW (n = 568)	Controls (n = 1060)	p-value
Sex			.223
[Male]	267 (47.0%)	464 (43.7%)
[Female]	301 (53.0%)	596 (56.3%)
Parental education			<.001
[High, ISCED level 6–8]	94 (16.8%)	354 (33.6%)
[Medium, ISCED level 3–5]	342 (61.3%)	507 (48.1%)
[Low, ISCED level 0–2]	122 (21.9%)	192 (18.2%)
Age of assessment [M (SD)]	23.87 (2.90)	24.47 (1.98)	<.001

Notes. Controls = term-born adults; ISCED: International Standard Classification of Education; VP/VLBW: very preterm or with very low birth weight.

Critical appraisal of included studies

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to critically assess the quality of cohort studies. Almost all cohort studies included had a low risk of bias on the selection domain (exposed cohort being representative of the average sample in the community, non-exposed cohort being drawn from the same community, using secure records to ascertain exposure, outcome of interest not being present at the start of the study), apart from the EPICure cohort, as term-born individuals were drawn from a different source to VP/VLBW individuals. All studies were controlled for sex and parental education, and therefore were considered to be high on comparability. Some concerns were raised on the outcome domain, particularly as all studies assessed the outcome using self-report, and some studies (AYLS, BLS, and EPICure) also had a lower rate of follow-up (<50%). Overall, ESTER and HeSVA received the highest scores and EPICure received the lowest.

Primary analysis (one-stage IPD)

Personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born participants

In comparison with term-born participants, VP/VLBW adults had lower standardized mean differences for extraversion and openness, and higher standardized mean differences for neuroticism and agreeableness (Table 3); no differences between groups were found for conscientiousness. All estimates remained of a similar quantum and significance after adjusting for sex and parental education (Table 3), suggesting that differences in personality between VP/VLBW and term-born participants are not explained by these common sociodemographic factors. No significant interactions between VP/VLBW birth and sex and between VP/VLBW and parental education were found (Supplementary Materials, Table S7). Low heterogeneity was found between studies on age of assessment, year of study recruitment, and levels of attrition, indicating low variance between the cohorts (τ₀₀) and larger within-subject variance (σ²).

Table 3.

Standardized mean differences, unadjusted and adjusted for sex, and parental education level, between VP/VLBW and term-born participants for each of the five personality traits (N = 1,628).

	Neuroticism	Extraversion	Openness	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness
	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)
Fixed effect
VP/VLBW (unadjusted)	0.23 (0.11, 0.35)	−0.42 (-0.53, -0.31)	−0.25 (-0.36, -0.14) ^a	0.13 (0.03, 0.23)	0.08 (−0.05, 0.18)
Random effect
σ²	1.10	1.06	1.11	1.02	1.06
τ₀₀ age	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01
τ₀₀ year	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
τ₀₀ dropout	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fixed effect
VP/VLBW (adjusted)	0.25 (0.14, 0.36)	−0.39 (-0.50, -0.28)	−0.19 (-0.30, -0.08) ^b	0.17 (0.07, 0.28)	0.08 (−0.04, 0.18)
Random effect
σ²	1.01	1.05	1.05	1.00	1.05
τ₀₀ age	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
τ₀₀ year	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
τ₀₀ dropout	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

^aN = 1,627.

^bN = 1,610.

Notes. VP/VLBW = very preterm or very low birth weight; β = standardized estimates; CI = confidence interval; σ² = residual variance/within-subject variance; τ₀₀ = random intercept variance/between-subject variance; Age = age of assessment; Year = year of recruitment; Dropout = levels of attrition.

Subgroup analyses: Neonatal characteristics

Within the VP/VLBW population, after adjusting for sex and maternal education, individuals with neonatal bronchopulmonary dysplasia had statistically significantly higher scores for neuroticism and lower scores for extraversion compared to those without (Table 4). No effects of gestational age and delivery mode and no significant differences in openness, agreeableness, or conscientiousness were found (Table 4).

Table 4.

Standardized mean differences of individual predictors for each of the five personality traits within the VP/VLBW Population (N = 568).

Fixed effect^a	Neuroticism	Extraversion	Openness	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness
Fixed effect^a	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)
Gestational age	0.02 (−0.04, 0.07)	0.01 (−0.04, 0.06)	0.01 (−0.04, 0.06)	0.02 (−0.02, 0.06)	0.03 (−0.02, 0.08)
Birth weight z score	0.05 (−0.04, 0.15)	0.02 (−0.08, 0.11)	0.03 (−0.07, 0.13)	0.06 (−0.03, 0.15)	0.09 (−0.01, 0.19)
Delivery mode [ref: vaginal]	0.08 (−0.13, 0.29)	0.05 (−0.16, 0.26)	0.03 (−0.19, 0.25)	−0.05 (−0.25, 0.15)	−0.05 (−0.26, 0.16)
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia [ref: none]	0.24 (0.04, 0.45)	−0.25 (-0.46, -0.03)	−0.07 (−0.29, 0.14)	−0.01 (−0.20, 0.17)	−0.07 (−0.28, 0.14)
Random effect
σ²	1.14	1.16	1.27	1.05	1.15
τ₀₀ age	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.02
τ₀₀ year	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.01
τ₀₀ dropout	0.04	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.02

^aAdjusted for sex and parental education levels.

Notes. VP/VLBW = very preterm or very low birth weight; β = standardized estimates; CI = confidence interval; σ² = residual variance/within-subject variance; τ₀₀ = random intercept variance/between-subject variance; Age = age of assessment; year = year of recruitment; Dropout = level of attrition.

Subgroup analyses: VP/VLBW participants without neurosensory impairments

All analyses were repeated after exclusion of VP/VLBW participants who had any neurosensory impairments in childhood. Findings remained consistent with similar effect sizes to those described above, suggesting that personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born controls, as well as the association between bronchopulmonary dysplasia and personality differences within the VP/VLBW population, are not explained by severe neurological insult associated with moderate to severe functional limitations in VP/VLBW participants in childhood (Supplementary Materials, Table S8; Table 5).

Table 5.

Standardized mean differences of individual predictors for each of the five personality traits within the VP/VLBW population (after removing participants with neurosensory impairments) (N = 479).

Fixed effect^a	Neuroticism	Extraversion	Openness	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness
Fixed effect^a	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)
Gestational age	0.03 (−0.03, 0.09)	0.02 (−0.03, 0.08)	0.03 (−0.03, 0.08)	0.03 (−0.02, 0.07)	0.02 (−0.04, 0.07)
Birth weight z score	0.05 (−0.06, 0.15)	0.05 (−0.05, 0.16)	0.04 (−0.07, 0.15)	0.07 (−0.03, 0.16)	0.08 (−0.02, 0.19)
Delivery mode [ref: vaginal]	0.07 (−0.16, 0.29)	0.04 (−0.20, 0.27)	0.01 (−0.22, 0.25)	−0.12 (−0.33, 0.09)	−0.05 (−0.27, 0.18)
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia [ref: none]	0.26 (0.04, 0.49)	−0.30 (-0.53, -0.07)	−0.00 (−0.23, 0.23)	−0.02 (−0.22, 0.19)	−0.10 (−0.32, 0.13)
Random effect
σ²	1.07	1.17	1.20	1.01	1.09
τ₀₀ age	0.05	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.02
τ₀₀ year	0.04	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.02
τ₀₀ dropout	0.05	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.01

^aAdjusted for sex and parental education levels.

Secondary analysis (two-stage IPD)

A two-stage IPD meta-analysis was conducted by combining effect sizes from each cohort, including aggregate data from the Danish study. Two sets of published estimates from the Danish study were available as two cohorts were included in the study; however, the published paper also presented estimates for both cohorts combined (Hertz et al., 2013). These combined estimates (mean t-scores) from the two cohorts were used in this secondary analysis and transformed into standardized mean differences (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Wilson, 2017, 2023). Results were similar to the one-stage approach: VP/VLBW adults scored lower on extraversion and openness and higher on agreeableness than term-born participants (Figure 2). The effect size for neuroticism was similar compared to the one-stage approach, but this did not reach statistical significance tested at p < .05 in the two-stage approach. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies on neuroticism (I² = 80%). This was different to the measures of heterogeneity reported from the one-stage analysis, which may be explained by the different measures of heterogeneity used, and that although there is little variability among the effect sizes between studies (indicated by low τ value), there may be considerable variation between studies that is not explained by chance alone (indicated by large I²) (Huang, 2023; Steenbergen, 2020).

Figure 2.

Secondary analysis: Forest plots showing personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born participants, including aggregate data from the Danish cohort.

Robustness analyses

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia defined as >28 days supplemental oxygen after birth

We repeated analyses within the VP/VLBW population after removing one cohort (EPICure) which used a different definition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Neonatal bronchopulmonary dysplasia (defined only as supplemental oxygen use for more than 28 days after birth) was still associated with lower scores on extraversion, with similar effect sizes compared to when all cohorts were included, although its effect on neuroticism was weakened and no longer statistically significant (Supplementary Materials, Table S9). Findings remained the same after removing VP/VLBW participants with childhood neurosensory impairments (Supplementary Materials, Table S10).

Two-stage IPD using only cohorts included in one-stage

A forest plot showing the findings from a two-stage IPD using only cohorts included in the one-stage IPD analysis can also be found in Supplementary Materials (Figure S1), with similar effects as those reported in primary and secondary analyses.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine personality differences in the VP/VLBW population compared to term-born adults, and to investigate whether neonatal characteristics and childhood neurosensory impairments may help explain variations in personality traits within the VP/VLBW population. Findings from five cohorts showed that VP/VLBW adults scored lower on extraversion and openness and higher on neuroticism and agreeableness compared to term-born participants. The magnitude of these differences remained similar after accounting for sex and parental education, and no interactions were found with them, suggesting that sex and parental education—two important predictors of personality differences in the literature (Schmitt et al., 2008; Sutin et al., 2017)—did not differentially influence the association of VP/VLBW birth on personality. Further analyses within the VP/VLBW population discovered that those with a history of bronchopulmonary dysplasia scored lower on extraversion and higher on neuroticism even after removing participants with a history of neurosensory impairments in childhood. Altogether, these findings tentatively suggest that personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born adults, as well as individual differences within the VP/VLBW population, may be partly due to neonatal morbidities and brain injury arising from VP/VLBW birth, rather than sociodemographic (i.e., maternal education) or functional limitations investigated in this current study.

The findings that VP/VLBW adults scored lower on extraversion and higher on neuroticism are consistent with the existing literature (Allin et al., 2006; Eryigit-Madzwamuse, Strauss et al., 2015; Hertz et al., 2013; Lyall et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2008; Waxman et al., 2013). This adds further support to the previously defined preterm personality phenotype, which is characterized by shyness, social withdrawal, less risk-taking behaviors, and increased internalizing symptoms in childhood and adulthood (Johnson et al., 2011, 2018; Pyhälä et al., 2017; Wolke et al., 2019). The finding that VP/VLBW adults scored higher on agreeableness is also consistent with a few studies (Eryigit-Madzwamuse, Strauss et al., 2015; Hertz et al., 2013), albeit somewhat surprising given that agreeableness has been associated with higher IQ scores (Bartels et al., 2012) whereas VP/VLBW birth is associated with lower IQ (Eryigit-Madzwamuse, Baumann et al., 2015). It has been postulated that agreeableness may originate from early relationship and attachment with the caregiver (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). Whereas this may be disturbed in infants looked after in a neonatal intensive care unit, mothers of VP/VLBW children may not be any less sensitive or responsive compared to mothers of term-born children (Bilgin & Wolke, 2015). Furthermore, agreeableness has been correlated negatively with externalizing problems such as hostility (Miller et al., 2008). VP/VLBW adults consistently report more internalizing symptoms and lower externalizing symptoms than term-born (Johnson & Marlow, 2011), which may explain their higher agreeableness scores compared to term-born adults. VP/VLBW adults also scored lower on openness, consistent with one previous study (Pesonen et al., 2008), although no differences were found for conscientiousness.

Findings of personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born adults may also be interpreted within a biological framework of personality. Eysenck (1963) and later Gray (1987) suggested that neuroticism and extraversion may be associated with the activation of different neural or hormone modulatory systems (DeYoung & Blain, 2020). Neuroticism has been consistently associated with the activity of amygdala and hippocampus (DeYoung & Blain, 2020; Garcia-Banda et al., 2014; Holmes et al., 2012; Kaczkurkin et al., 2016; Schuyler et al., 2014; Servaas et al., 2013), as well as alterations in hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis function, including the levels of the stress hormone cortisol, but often with inconsistent and contradictory findings due to differences in experimental design or heterogeneity in the measures used (Ormel et al., 2013). Extraversion, on the other hand, is theorized to be associated with cortical arousal levels (Eysenck, 1963; Gray, 1987; Pickering & Gray, 1999), as well as with brain regions implicated in reward processing, including the medial orbitofrontal cortex and striatum (Barrós-Loscertales et al., 2006; DeYoung et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2014). Less evidence exists for neurobiological underpinning for the other three personality traits. Openness has been associated with cognitive abilities and dompaminergic function as well as differential patterns of white matter connectivity (DeYoung, 2013, 2020; Jung et al., 2010) whereas agreeableness has been found to relate to regions responsible for social information processing and empathy, such as the medial prefrontal cortex and mirror neuron system (DeYoung & Blain, 2020; Rizzolatti, 2005; Seitz et al., 2006). Finally, the primary neurobiological basis of conscientiousness has been linked with the prefrontal cortex which is involved in cognitive processing of goals and the ability to plan and follow complex rules (DeYoung & Blain, 2020; Kapogiannis et al., 2013; Riccelli et al., 2017). However, these biological underpinnings of personality have received mixed support in the literature, as sample sizes in neuroimaging studies have been small, and recent evidence suggests that the association between brain structure and personality may be partly attributed to genetic differences instead, with approximately 40% of variations in personality found to be heritable (Vukasović & Bratko, 2015).

Nevertheless, the finding that specific neonatal factors within the VP/VLBW population partly explained variations in personality may contribute further evidence to the biological framework of personality, which requires further investigation. For example, neonatal bronchopulmonary dysplasia was associated with lower extraversion and higher neuroticism scores within the VP/VLBW population. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia is a chronic lung condition which mostly affects infants born very preterm who require mechanical ventilation with oxygen supplementation (Kinsella et al., 2006). VP/VLBW infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia have smaller brain volumes and altered white matter characteristics compared to those without BPD, suggesting a particular association with disturbed brain development (Lee et al., 2019; Neubauer et al., 2015). Thus, one potential explanation for the association of bronchopulmonary dysplasia with neuroticism and extraversion might be through its effect as a marker of more severe neonatal conditions, which are more likely to cause alterations in brain development (Kelly et al., 2023). There is more support in the literature for a biological origin of these two personality traits compared to the other three traits of the Five-Factor Model (DeYoung & Blain, 2020), which is consistent with findings of this study, where bronchopulmonary dysplasia was only associated with variations in neuroticism and extraversion traits. Furthermore, the effects of bronchopulmonary dysplasia persisted when children with the most severe functional limitations were removed. This further suggests that the effect of bronchopulmonary dysplasia on personality may be partly attributed to disturbed brain development rather than other functional impairments resulting from this neonatal complication (Neubauer et al., 2015; Schmidt, 2003; Siffel et al., 2021), but further research is needed to rule out the presence of other factors such as genetics.

Altogether, these findings suggest that at least part of the differences in personality observed in the VP/VLBW population may be interpreted and explained using a biological framework of personality (DeYoung & Blain, 2020; Eysenck, 1963; Zuckerman, 2012). Although we did not test specific biological mechanisms underlying personality traits, given that there is consistent evidence for frequent brain injuries and neurological developmental disturbances in those born VP/VLBW (Bäuml et al., 2015; Meng et al., 2016; Volpe, 2009), it may be inferred that part of the personality differences observed in this population may be attributed to these biological risks, which persisted after accounting for sex and parental education, and excluding those with severe disabling conditions (i.e., neurosensory impairments) in childhood. However, only sex and parental education were considered as confounders in the study due to the availability of data across studies, but there may be other confounders that may explain some of the personality differences in the VP/VLBW population. For example, prenatal maternal depression has been associated with increased risk of preterm birth and low birth weight, possibly due to biological changes from the release of stress hormones which can restrict nutrients to the fetus, and lead to growth restriction or early delivery (Grote et al., 2010). Maternal depression has also been associated with suboptimal parent-child relationship which may affect child temperament (Hazell Raine et al., 2020). The combination of biological changes and parenting behavior as a result of maternal depression may therefore also influence the development of personality. However, there is no evidence to suggest that parenting behaviors differ between VP/VLBW and term-born controls (Bilgin & Wolke, 2015), although further research is needed to examine possible biological pathway as well. Furthermore, a new large sample prospective research that started before pregnancies resulting in preterm birth indicated no differences in life satisfaction of parents before and during pregnancy. Rather, preterm birth reduced life satisfactions in the first two years after birth for mothers (Eves et al., 2023). There may also be a genetic component, given the moderate heritability of personality (Bleidorn et al., 2016; Sanchez-Roige et al., 2018) and the identification of genetic predictors for preterm birth (Mead et al., 2023). These were not investigated in this study due to the lack of genetic data.

Although this study cannot exclude the effect of other confounders, the synthesis of evidence across six European VP/VLBW cohorts has contributed further evidence on personality differences in domains that have not been examined much previously or have received mixed findings (i.e., openness and conscientiousness), as well as domains which may have biological correlates (i.e., extraversion and neuroticism were the only personality domains significantly associated with bronchopulmonary dysplasia). Personality is implicated in many areas of adult functioning, including health, education, and social relationships (Roberts et al., 2007). Hence, understanding personality differences in those born VP/VLBW may help explain the association between VP/VLBW birth and altered functioning in these areas, which have been frequently reported in the literature. For example, lower extraversion scores have been associated with smaller social networks and reduced social support (Zhu et al., 2013), which may explain why overall VP/VLBW adults also report fewer romantic relationships (Mendonça et al., 2019) or friends (Ni et al., 2021). Similarly, some have suggested a causal relationship between neuroticism and depression (Jeronimus et al., 2016; Speed et al., 2019), and VP/VLBW birth is also associated with increased risk of psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety (Anderson et al., 2021; Fitzallen et al., 2021; Nosarti et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2020). Personality may thus be an important mediator in other life outcomes for the VP/VLBW population, and it would be important for future studies to combine neurobiological, psychosocial, and genetic data within the VP/VLBW population, which may also have implications for understanding personality development in the general population.

Strengths and limitations of the study

There are several strengths to this IPD meta-analysis. First, the inclusion of individual-level data allowed for a large sample size to maximize power for testing of differences in personality scores between VP/VLBW adults and term-born participants. Access to individual-level data also enabled more detailed investigation of other predictors beyond initial group differences, which is often limited in traditional meta-analysis with aggregate data (Burke et al., 2017). Second, the eligibility criteria ensured that only studies which examined personality using the Five-Factor Model were included. This helped to ensure that similar personality traits were measured across different studies. Third, a secondary analysis using aggregate data from another cohort (Danish cohort) identified from the literature revealed similar findings despite the differences in statistical approach (one-stage vs two-stage).

Our study also has some limitations. First, despite only including cohorts which have assessed personality using the Five-Factor Model, several personality questionnaires (i.e., the BFI-10 and variations of NEO-PI) in different languages were used. Although all cohorts assessed personality across five traits, the used instruments differ in their definition and measurement of the personality traits. For instance, previous research has shown that the correlations between the BFI-10 and NEO-PI respective factors are relatively low for openness and agreeableness due to the reduction of items and loss of information (Rammstedt & John, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2007). However, little heterogeneity was found between studies on these two personality traits, indicating that findings were quite homogenous regardless of the type of instrument used across studies. Second, data came exclusively from European countries (i.e., UK/Ireland, Germany, Finland, and Denmark). It has been previously shown that there may be some culture-specific personality differences (Allik et al., 2017), in particular for sex differences which are larger in North America and Europe than in Eastern/South Eastern Asia (Schmitt et al., 2008); thus, results may not be generalizable to other settings. Third, only a small selection of predictors and confounders was considered in this study due to the availability of data across cohorts. Personality traits have been previously found to have a moderate genetic basis (Sanchez-Roige et al., 2018; Vukasović & Bratko, 2015), and prenatal stress such as maternal depression may also contribute to preterm birth via biological processes which may also be associated with differences in personality. These data were not available and could not be considered in the study. Different definitions for bronchopulmonary dysplasia were used in the study. This was a limitation of harmonizing data across cohorts which have assessed bronchopulmonary dysplasia in different ways. However, we repeated the analyses by including only cohorts which used the mild definition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and similar findings emerged. Lastly, some deviations from the pre-registration completed before data were available should be noted: secondary outcomes (risk-taking and delinquent behaviors) were not investigated given that data agreements were not completed before the end of the study. Although this was not intentional, these outcomes may also receive less attention in the literature, which may contribute further to publication bias. Sex was considered as a covariate rather than a predictor, which doesn’t change the results of the analyses, but instead shifts the interpretation of the results from explaining the effect of sex on personality, to whether personality differences between VP/VLBW and term-born adults remained after controlling for sex. We examined the role of neurosensory impairments by comparing findings before and after removing those with neurosensory impairments. We conducted this analysis rather than utilizing neurosensory impairment as a mediator/moderator due to the fact that these impairments are widely defined as cerebral palsy or visual or hearing impairment or cognitive disability. These impairments refer to different, often neurological origins, were not assessed the same across cohorts and thus we opted to exclude this heterogenous group instead in sensitivity analysis. Results remained very similar; however, as we did not examine the moderating role of neurosensory impairments, no conclusions can be drawn on this research question.

Conclusion

Using individual-level longitudinal data from five European cohorts, we found consistent evidence of VP/VLBW adults scoring higher on neuroticism and agreeableness and lower on extraversion and openness to new experiences than their term-born peers. Further analyses within the VP/VLBW population found that the presence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia—an indicator of more severe neonatal complications and proxy measure for altered brain development—was further associated with individual differences in extraversion and neuroticism, even after excluding those with severe functional limitations in childhood, suggesting stronger biological underpinnings to these personality traits, although other confounders such as prenatal maternal psychopathology and genetics may also play a role. Future research should investigate whether alterations in brain development—as assessed with neuroimaging studies—mediate the association between VP/VLBW birth and personality, in particular, for neuroticism and extraversion.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The effect of very preterm birth on the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis of individual participant data

Supplemental Material for The effect of very preterm birth on the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis of individual participant data by Yiwen Liu, Anu Realo, Marina Mendonça, Nicole Baumann, Peter Bartmann, Katri Räikkönen, Kati Heinonen, Rachel Robinson, Neil Marlow, Samantha Johnson, Yanyan Ni, Eero Kajantie, Petteri Hovi, Marjaana Tikanmäki and Dieter Wolke in European Journal of Personality.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The effect of very preterm birth on the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis of individual participant data

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: NM reports consultancies with Takeda and Novartis.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the Yrjö Jahnssonin Säätiö, Novo Nordisk Fonden, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (733280), Juho Vainion Säätiö, Research Council of Finland, Finnish Foundation for Pediatric Research, Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, Sydäntutkimussäätiö, UCLH NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, Emil Aaltosen Säätiö, Medical Research Council, UKRI Frontier Research grant guarantee for an ERC-AdG award to DW (EP/X023206/1), Sigrid Juselius Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Science (01EP9504, 01ER0801, JUG14 and PKE24) and Päivikki ja Sakari Sohlbergin Säätiö. AR was a KONE Foundation Fellow at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies during the write up of the manuscript.

Open science statement

Meta-data and materials used in this meta-analysis can be found on the RECAP-preterm platform: https://recap-preterm.eu/access-to-the-recap-preterm-cohort-platform/. A list of related publications using data from the RECAP-preterm platform can be found here: https://recap-preterm.eu/our-findings/publications/. This meta-analysis has been pre-registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020162046). Individual-level data are not openly accessible as per data transfer agreements, as the VP/VLBW population is a rare population, thus there is increased risk of personal and clinical information being used to identify individual participants. Statistical scripts can be found in .

ORCID iD

Yiwen Liu

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abu Raya

Ogunyemi

A. O.

Broder

Carstensen

V. R.

Illanes-Manrique

Rankin

K. P.

(2023). The neurobiology of openness as a personality trait. Frontiers in Neurology, 14, 1235345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1235345

Al Khalaf

S. Y.

O’Neill

S. M.

O’Keeffe

L. M.

Henriksen

T. B.

Kenny

L. C.

Cryan

J. F.

Khashan

A. S.

(2015). The impact of obstetric mode of delivery on childhood behavior. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50(10), 1557–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1055-9

Allik

Church

A. T.

Ortiz

F. A.

Rossier

Hřebíčková

de Fruyt

Realo

McCrae

R. R.

(2017). Mean profiles of the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117692100

Allin

Rooney

Cuddy

Wyatt

Walshe

Rifkin

Murray

(2006). Personality in young adults who are born preterm. Pediatrics, 117(2), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0539

Aluja

Garcia

Rossier

Garcia

L. F.

(2005). Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.014

Anderson

P. J.

de Miranda

D. M.

Albuquerque

M. R.

Indredavik

M. S.

Evensen

K. A. I.

Van Lieshout

Saigal

Taylor

H. G.

Raikkonen

Kajantie

Marlow

Johnson

Woodward

L. J.

Austin

Nosarti

Jaekel

Wolke

Cheong

J. L.

Burnett

Doyle

L. W.

(2021). Psychiatric disorders in individuals born very preterm/very low-birth weight: An individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 42, 101216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101216

Barrós-Loscertales

Meseguer

Sanjuán

Belloch

Parcet

M. A.

Torrubia

Ávila

(2006). Striatum gray matter reduction in males with an overactive behavioral activation system. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24(7), 2071–2074. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05084.x

Bartels

van Weegen

F. I.

van Beijsterveldt

C. E. M.

Carlier

Polderman

T. J. C.

Hoekstra

R. A.

Boomsma

D. I.

(2012). The five factor model of personality and intelligence: A twin study on the relationship between the two constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.007

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

10.

Bäuml

J. G.

Daamen

Meng

Neitzel

Scheef

Jaekel

Busch

Baumann

Bartmann

Wolke

Boecker

Wohlschläger

A. M.

Sorg

(2015). Correspondence between aberrant intrinsic network connectivity and gray-matter volume in the ventral brain of preterm born adults. Cerebral Cortex, 25(11), 4135–4145. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu133

11.

Benet-Martínez

John

O. P.

(1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729

12.

Bilgin

Wolke

(2015). Maternal sensitivity in parenting preterm children: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 136(1), e177–e193. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3570

13.

Blake

J. A.

Gardner

Najman

Scott

J. G.

(2021). The association of birth by caesarean section and cognitive outcomes in offspring: A systematic review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 56(4), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-02008-2

14.

Bleidorn

Arslan

R. C.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Gebauer

J. E.

Potter

Gosling

S. D.

(2016). Age and Gender Differences in Self-Esteem (15). APA.

15.

Burke

D. L.

Ensor

Riley

R. D.

(2017). Meta-analysis using individual participant data: One-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ. Statistics in Medicine, 36(5), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7141

16.

Buuren

S. V.

Groothuis-oudshoorn

(2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03

17.

Chawanpaiboon

Vogel

J. P.

Moller

A.-B.

Lumbiganon

Petzold

Hogan

Landoulsi

Jampathong

Kongwattanakul

Laopaiboon

Lewis

Rattanakanokchai

Teng

D. N.

Thinkhamrop

Watananirun

Zhang

Zhou

Gülmezoglu

A. M.

(2019). Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: A systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Global Health, 7(1), e37–e46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0

18.

Cheong

J. L. Y.

Spittle

A. J.

Burnett

A. C.

Anderson

P. J.

Doyle

L. W.

(2020). Have outcomes following extremely preterm birth improved over time? Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 25(3), 101114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2020.101114

19.

Cloninger

C. R.

Svrakic

D. M.

Przybeck

T. R.

(1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008

20.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

21.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1989). NEO PI/FFI manual supplement for use with the NEO personality inventory and the NEO five-factor inventory. Psychological Assessment Resources.

22.

Costeloe

K. L.

Hennessy

E. M.

Haider

Stacey

Marlow

Draper

E. S.

(2012). Short term outcomes after extreme preterm birth in England: Comparison of two birth cohorts in 1995 and 2006 (the EPICure studies). BMJ, 345, Article e7976. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7976

23.

Cremers

van Tol

M. J.

Roelofs

Aleman

Zitman

F. G.

van Buchem

M. A.

Veltman

D. J.

van der Wee

N. J. A.

(2011). Extraversion is linked to volume of the orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala. PLoS One, 6(12), Article e28421. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028421

24.

Curran

E. A.

Dalman

Kearney

P. M.

Kenny

L. C.

Cryan

J. F.

Dinan

T. G.

Khashan

A. S.

(2015). Association between obstetric mode of delivery and autism spectrum disorder: A population-based sibling design study. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(9), 935–942. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0846

25.

Debray

T. P. A.

Moons

K. G. M.

van Valkenhoef

Efthimiou

Hummel

Groenwold

R. H. H.

Reitsma

J. B.

GetReal Methods Review Group . (2015). Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: A review of the methodology. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(4), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1160

26.

Deeks

J. J.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Altman

D. G.

(2019). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Higgins

J. P. T.

Thomas

Chandler

Cumpston

Page

M. J.

Welch

V. A.

(Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10

27.

de Kieviet

J. F.

Zoetebier

van Elburg

R. M.

Vermeulen

R. J.

Oosterlaan

(2012). Brain development of very preterm and very low-birthweight children in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 54(4), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.04216.x

28.

Depue

R. A.

Collins

P. F.

(1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491–569. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002046

29.

DeYoung

(2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 762. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762

30.

DeYoung

(2015). Cybernetic Big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004

31.

DeYoung

(2020). Intelligence and personality. In The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 1011–1047). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770422.043

32.

DeYoung

Blain

S. D.

(2020). Personality neuroscience. In Matthews

Corr

P. J.

(Eds.), The cambridge handbook of personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 273–292). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108264822.026

33.

DeYoung

Hirsh

J. B.

Shane

M. S.

Papademetris

Rajeevan

Gray

J. R.

(2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the Big five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610370159

34.

Draper

E. S.

Zeitlin

Manktelow

B. N.

Piedvache

Cuttini

Edstedt Bonamy

A. K.

Maier

Koopman-Esseboom

Gadzinowski

Boerch

van Reempts

Varendi

Johnson

S. J.

EPICE group . (2020). EPICE cohort: Two-year neurodevelopmental outcomes after very preterm birth. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 105(4), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-317418

35.

Dubois

Eberhardt

Paul

L. K.

Adolphs

(2020). Personality beyond taxonomy. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1110–1117. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00989-3

36.

Eryigit-Madzwamuse

Baumann

Jaekel

Bartmann

Wolke

(2015). Neuro-cognitive performance of very preterm or very low birth weight adults at 26 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(8), 857–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12358

37.

Eryigit-Madzwamuse

Strauss

Baumann

Bartmann

Wolke

(2015). Personality of adults who were born very preterm. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 100(6), F524–F529. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-308007

38.

Eves

Baumann

Bilgin

Schnitzlein

Richter

Wolke

Lemola

(2023). Parents’ life satisfaction prior to and following preterm birth. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 21233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48582-8

39.

Eves

Mendonça

Bartmann

Wolke

(2020). Small for gestational age-cognitive performance from infancy to adulthood: An observational study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 127(13), 1598–1606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16341

40.

Eves

Mendonça

Baumann

Darlow

B. A.

Horwood

Woodward

L. J.

Doyle

L. W.

Cheong

Anderson

P. J.

Bartmann

Marlow

Johnson

Kajantie

Hovi

Nosarti

Indredavik

M. S.

Evensen

K.-A. I.

Räikkönen

Wolke

(2021). Association of very preterm birth or very low birth weight with intelligence in adulthood: An individual participant data meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(8), Article e211058. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.1058

41.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1963). Biological basis of personality. Nature, 199(4898), 1031–1034. https://doi.org/10.1038/1991031a0

42.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1967). The biological basis of personality. Transaction Publishers.

43.

Fenton

T. R.

Kim

J. H.

(2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatrics, 13(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-59

44.

Fenton

T. R.

Sauve

R. S.

(2007). Using the LMS method to calculate z-scores for the Fenton preterm infant growth chart. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(12), 1380–1385. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602667

45.

Fitzallen

G. C.

Sagar

Y. K.

Taylor

H. G.

Bora

(2021). Anxiety and depressive disorders in children born preterm: A meta-analysis. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 42(2), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000898

46.

Funder

D. C.

(1997). The personality puzzle (p. 466). W W Norton & Co.

47.

Garcia-Banda

Chellew

Fornes

Perez

Servera

Evans

(2014). Neuroticism and cortisol: Pinning down an expected effect. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 91(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.12.005

48.

Gray

J. A.

(1982). Précis of the neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(3), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00013066

49.

Gray

J. A.

(1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21(4), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(87)90036-5

50.

Graziano

W. G.

Eisenberg

(1997). Chapter 30 - agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In Hogan

Johnson

Briggs

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50031-7

51.

Grote

N. K.

Bridge

J. A.

Gavin

A. R.

Melville

J. L.

Iyengar

Katon

W. J.

(2010). A meta-analysis of depression during pregnancy and the risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, and intrauterine growth restriction. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(10), 1012–1024. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.111

52.

Hadaya

Nosarti

(2020). The neurobiological correlates of cognitive outcomes in adolescence and adulthood following very preterm birth. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 25(3), 101117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2020.101117

53.

Hämäläinen

(1994). NESTA-persoonallisuustestin (NEO-PI) standardointi ‘viiden suuren’ persoonallisuuden piirteen arvioimiseksi. Jyväskylän yliopisto.

54.

Hazell Raine

Nath

Howard

L. M.

Cockshaw

Boyce

Sawyer

Thorpe

(2020). Associations between prenatal maternal mental health indices and mother–infant relationship quality 6 to 18 months’ postpartum: A systematic review. Infant Mental Health Journal, 41(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21825

55.

Hedderich

D. M.

Boeckh-Behrens

Bäuml

J. G.

Menegaux

Daamen

Zimmer

Bartmann

Scheef

Boecker

Wolke

Sorg

Spiro

J. E.

(2020). Sequelae of premature birth in young adults: Incidental findings on routine brain MRI. Clinical Neuroradiology, 31(2), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-020-00901-6

56.

Heinonen

Räikkönen

Pesonen

A.-K.

Kajantie

Andersson

Eriksson

J. G.

Niemelä

Vartia

Peltola

Lano

(2008). Prenatal and postnatal growth and cognitive abilities at 56 Months of age: A longitudinal study of infants born at term. Pediatrics, 121(5), e1325–e1333. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1172

57.

Hertz

C. L.

Mathiasen

Hansen

B. M.

Mortensen

E. L.

Greisen

(2013). Personality of adults who were born very preterm. PLoS One, 8(6), F524–F529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066881

58.

Holmes

A. J.

Lee

P. H.

Hollinshead

M. O.

Bakst

Roffman

J. L.

Smoller

J. W.

Buckner

R. L.

(2012). Individual differences in amygdala-medial prefrontal anatomy link negative affect, impaired social functioning, and polygenic depression risk. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(50), 18087–18100. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2531-12.2012

59.

Hovi

Andersson

Eriksson

J. G.

Järvenpää

A.-L.

Strang-Karlsson

Mäkitie

Kajantie

(2007). Glucose regulation in young adults with very low birth weight. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(20), 2053–2063. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067187

60.

Moore

Bertels

Phan

K. L.

Dolcos

(2020). Smaller amygdala volume and increased neuroticism predict anxiety symptoms in healthy subjects: A volumetric approach using manual tracing. Neuropsychologia, 145, 106564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.11.008

61.

Huang

(2023). Combining estimators in interlaboratory studies and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 14(3), 526–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1633

62.

Inder

T. E.

Volpe

J. J.

Anderson

P. J.

(2023). Defining the neurologic consequences of preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 389(5), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2303347

63.

Jeronimus

B. F.

Kotov

Riese

Ormel

(2016). Neuroticism’s prospective association with mental disorders halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays with time: A meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443 313 participants. Psychological Medicine, 46(14), 2883–2906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716001653

64.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). Big five inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/t07550-000

65.

John

O. P.

Naumann

L. P.

Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). The Guilford Press.

66.

Johnson

Fawke

Hennessy

Rowell

Thomas

Wolke

Marlow

(2009). Neurodevelopmental disability through 11 years of age in children born before 26 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics, 124(2), e249–e257. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-3743

67.

Johnson

Marlow

(2011). Preterm birth and childhood psychiatric disorders. Pediatric Research, 69(5 Pt 2), 11–18R. https://doi.org/10.1203/PDR.0b013e318212faa0

68.

Johnson

Waheed

Manktelow

B. N.

Field

D. J.

Marlow

Draper

E. S.

Boyle

E. M.

(2018). Differentiating the preterm phenotype: Distinct profiles of cognitive and behavioral development following late and moderately preterm birth. The Journal of Pediatrics, 193, 85–92.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.10.002

69.

Johnson

Wolke

Hennessy

Marlow

(2011). Educational outcomes in extremely preterm children: Neuropsychological correlates and predictors of attainment. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2011.540541

70.

Jung

R. E.

Grazioplene

Caprihan

Chavez

R. S.

Haier

R. J.

(2010). White matter integrity, creativity, and psychopathology: Disentangling constructs with diffusion tensor imaging. PLoS One, 5(3), Article e9818. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009818

71.

Kaczkurkin

A. N.

Moore

T. M.

Ruparel

Ciric

Calkins

M. E.

Shinohara

R. T.

Elliott

M. A.

Hopson

Roalf

D. R.

Vandekar

S. N.

Gennatas

E. D.

Wolf

D. H.

Scott

J. C.

Pine

D. S.

Leibenluft

Detre

J. A.

Foa

E. B.

Gur

R. E.

Gur

R. C.

Satterthwaite

T. D.

(2016). Elevated amygdala perfusion mediates developmental sex differences in trait anxiety. Biological Psychiatry, 80(10), 775–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.04.021

72.

Kapogiannis

Sutin

Davatzikos

Costa

Resnick

(2013). The five factors of personality and regional cortical variability in the baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Human Brain Mapping, 34(11), 2829–2840. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22108

73.

Kaseva

Wehkalampi

Strang-Karlsson

Salonen

Pesonen

A.-K.

Räikkönen

Tammelin

Hovi

Lahti

Heinonen

Järvenpää

A.-L.

Andersson

Eriksson

J. G.

Kajantie

(2012). Lower conditioning leisure-time physical activity in young adults born preterm at very low birth weight. PLoS One, 7(2), e32430. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032430

74.

Kelly

C. E.

Shaul

Thompson

D. K.

Mainzer

R. M.

Yang

J. Y.

Dhollander

Cheong

J. L.

Inder

T. E.

Doyle

L. W.

Anderson

P. J.

(2023). Long-lasting effects of very preterm birth on brain structure in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 147, 105082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105082

75.

Kinsella

J. P.

Greenough

Abman

S. H.

(2006). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The Lancet, 367(9520), 1421–1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68615-7

76.

Kontopantelis

(2018). A comparison of one‐stage vs two‐stage individual patient data meta‐analysis methods: A simulation study. Research Synthesis Methods, 9(3), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1303

77.

Kreft

de Leeuw

(1998). Varying and random coefficient models. In Introducing multilevel modeling (pp. 35–56). Sage Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209366

78.

Lambert

P. C.

Sutton

A. J.

Abrams

K. R.

Jones

D. R.

(2002). A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00414-0

79.

Lano

(2002). The value of neonatal neurological assessment in predicting neurodevelopmental problems at preschool age. University of Helsinki.

80.

Lee

J.-M.

Choi

Y.-H.

Hong

Kim

N. Y.

Kim

E. B.

Lim

Kim

J. D.

Park

H.-K.

Lee

H. J.

(2019). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia is associated with altered brain volumes and white matter microstructure in preterm infants. Neonatology, 116(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499487

81.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.

82.

Lyall

D. M.

Inskip

H. M.

Mackay

Deary

I. J.

McIntosh

A. M.

Hotopf

Kendrick

Pell

J. P.

Smith

D. J.

(2016). Low birth weight and features of neuroticism and mood disorder in 83 545 participants of the UK Biobank cohort. BJPsych Open, 2(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.002154

83.

Marlow

Wolke

Bracewell

M. A.

Samara

EPICure Study Group . (2005). Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041367

84.

Matinolli

H.-M.

Männistö

Sipola-Leppänen

Tikanmäki

Heinonen

Lahti

Wehkalampi

Järvelin

M.-R.

Andersson

Lano

Vartia

Wolke

Eriksson

J. G.

Vääräsmäki

Räikkönen

Kajantie

(2017). Body image and eating behavior in young adults born preterm. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(12), 1442–1443. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22800

85.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

86.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers (10). APA.

87.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1

88.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). The Guilford Press.

89.

Mead

E. C.

Wang

C. A.

Phung

J. Y.

Williams

S. M.

Merialdi

Jacobsson

Lye

Menon

Pennell

C. E.

(2023). The role of genetics in preterm birth. Reproductive Sciences, 30(12), 3410–3427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-023-01287-9

90.

Mendonça

Bilgin

Wolke

(2019). Association of preterm birth and low birth weight with romantic partnership, sexual intercourse, and parenthood in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 2(7), e196961. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6961

91.

Meng

Bäuml

J. G.

Daamen

Jaekel

Neitzel

Scheef

Busch

Baumann

Boecker

Zimmer

Bartmann

Wolke

Wohlschläger

A. M.

Sorg

(2016). Extensive and interrelated subcortical white and gray matter alterations in preterm-born adults. Brain Structure and Function, 221(4), 2109–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-015-1032-9

92.

Miller

J. D.

Gaughan

E. T.

Maples

Price

(2011). A comparison of agreeableness scores from the Big five inventory and the NEO PI-R: Consequences for the study of narcissism and psychopathy. Assessment, 18(3), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411671

93.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Jones

(2008). Externalizing behavior through the lens of the five-factor model: A focus on agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845245

94.

Neubauer

Junker

Griesmaier

Schocke

Kiechl-Kohlendorfer

(2015). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia is associated with delayed structural brain maturation in preterm infants. Neonatology, 107(3), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369199

95.

Mendonça

Baumann

Eves

Kajantie

Hovi

Tikanmäki

Räikkönen

Heinonen

Indredavik

M. S.

Evensen

K.-A. I.

Johnson

Marlow

Wolke

(2021). Social functioning in adults born very preterm: Individual participant meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 148(5), Article e2021051986. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-051986

96.

Nosarti

Reichenberg

Murray

R. M.

Cnattingius

Lambe

M. P.

Yin

MacCabe

Rifkin

Hultman

C. M.

(2012). Preterm birth and psychiatric disorders in young adult life. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69(6), E1–E8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.1374

97.

Ormel

Bastiaansen

Riese

Bos

E. H.

Servaas

Ellenbogen

Rosmalen

J. G. M.

Aleman

(2013). The biological and psychological basis of neuroticism: Current status and future directions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.004

98.

Pesonen

A.-K.

Räikkönen

Heinonen

Andersson

Hovi

Järvenpää

A.-L.

Eriksson

J. G.

Kajantie

(2008). Personality of young adults born prematurely: The Helsinki study of very low birth weight adults. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(6), 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01874.x

99.

Pickering

A. D.

Gray

J. A.

(1999). The neuroscience of personality. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 277–299). Guilford Press.

100.

Pyhälä

Wolford

Kautiainen

Andersson

Bartmann

Baumann

Brubakk

A.-M.

Evensen

K. A. I.

Hovi

Kajantie

Lahti

Van Lieshout

R. J.

Saigal

Schmidt

L. A.

Indredavik

M. S.

Wolke

Räikkönen

(2017). Self-reported mental health problems among adults born preterm: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 139(4), e20162690. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2690

101.

Rammstedt

John

O. P.

(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

102.

Rammstedt

Kemper

Klein

M. C.

Beierlein

Kovaleva

(2013). Eine kurze skala zur messung der fünf dimensionen der persönlichkeit: Big-five-inventory-10 (BFI-10). Methoden, Daten und Analyse, 7(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2013.013

103.

Riccelli

Toschi

Nigro

Terracciano

Passamonti

(2017). Surface-based morphometry reveals the neuroanatomical basis of the five-factor model of personality. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(4), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw175

104.

Riegel

Betke

K. F.

(1995). Die Entwicklung gefährdet geborener Kinder bis zum fünften Lebensjahr: Die Arvo-Ylppö-Neugeborenen-Nachfolgestudie in Südbayern und Südfinnland;[Prof. Dr. Dr. Hc Klaus Betke zum 80. Geburtstag]. Enke.

105.

Riley

R. D.

Ensor

Hattle

Papadimitropoulou

Morris

T. P.

(2023). Two‐stage or not two‐stage? That is the question for IPD meta‐analysis projects. Research Synthesis Methods, 14(6), 903–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1661

106.

Rizzolatti

(2005). The mirror neuron system and its function in humans. Anatomy and Embryology, 210(5-6), 419–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-005-0039-z

107.

Roberts

B. W.

Kuncel

N. R.

Shiner

Caspi

Goldberg

L. R.

(2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

108.

Robinson

Lahti-Pulkkinen

Schnitzlein

Voit

Girchenko

Wolke

Lemola

Kajantie

Heinonen

Räikkönen

(2020). Mental health outcomes of adults born very preterm or with very low birth weight: A systematic review. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 25(3), 101113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2020.101113

109.

Sanchez-Roige

Gray

J. C.

MacKillop

Chen

C.-H.

Palmer

A. A.

(2018). The genetics of human personality. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 17(3), Article e12439. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12439

110.

Schmidt

Asztalos

E. V.

Roberts

R. S.

Robertson

C. M. T.

Sauve

R. S.

Whitfield

M. F.

Trial of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Preterms TIPP Investigators . (2003). Impact of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, brain injury, and severe retinopathy on the outcome of extremely low-birth-weight infants at 18 MonthsResults from the trial of indomethacin prophylaxis in preterms. JAMA, 289(9), 1124–1129. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.9.1124

111.

Schmidt

L. A.

Miskovic

Boyle

M. H.

Saigal

(2008). Shyness and timidity in young adults who were born at extremely low birth weight. Pediatrics, 122(1), e181–e187. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3747

112.

Schmitt

D. P.

Allik

McCrae

R. R.

Benet-Martínez

(2007). The geographic distribution of Big five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299

113.

Schmitt

D. P.

Long

A. E.

McPhearson

O’Brien

Remmert

Shah

S. H.

(2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 52(Suppl 1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12265

114.

Schmitt

D. P.

Realo

Voracek

Allik

(2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

115.

Schmitz-Koep

Zimmermann

Menegaux

Nuttall

Bäuml

J. G.

Schneider

S. C.

Daamen

Boecker

Zimmer

Wolke

Bartmann

Hedderich

D. M.

Sorg

(2021). Decreased amygdala volume in adults after premature birth. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 5403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84906-2

116.

Schuyler

B. S.

Kral

T. R. A.

Jacquart

Burghy

C. A.

Weng

H. Y.

Perlman

D. M.

Bachhuber

D. R. W.

Rosenkranz

M. A.

MacCoon

D. G.

van Reekum

C. M.

Lutz

Davidson

R. J.

(2014). Temporal dynamics of emotional responding: Amygdala recovery predicts emotional traits. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss131

117.

Seitz

R. J.

Nickel

Azari

N. P.

(2006). Functional modularity of the medial prefrontal cortex: Involvement in human empathy. Neuropsychology, 20(6), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.20.6.743

118.

Servaas

M. N.

van der Velde

Costafreda

S. G.

Horton

Ormel

Riese

Aleman

(2013). Neuroticism and the brain: A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies investigating emotion processing. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(8), 1518–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.005

119.

Siffel

Kistler

K. D.

Lewis

J. F. M.

Sarda

S. P.

(2021). Global incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia among extremely preterm infants: A systematic literature review. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 34(11), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1646240

120.

Simões

R. V.

Muñoz-Moreno

Cruz-Lemini

Eixarch

Bargalló

Sanz-Cortés

Gratacós

(2017). Brain metabolite alterations in infants born preterm with intrauterine growth restriction: Association with structural changes and neurodevelopmental outcome. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 216(1), 62.e1–62.e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.089

121.

Sipola-Leppänen

Vääräsmäki

Tikanmäki

Matinolli

H.-M.

Miettola

Hovi

Wehkalampi

Ruokonen

Sundvall

Pouta

Eriksson

J. G.

Järvelin

M.-R.

Kajantie

(2015). Cardiometabolic risk factors in young adults who were born preterm. American Journal of Epidemiology, 181(11), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu443

122.

Speed

Hemani

Speed

M. S.

Børglum

A. D.

Østergaard

S. D.

Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium . (2019). Investigating the causal relationship between neuroticism and depression via Mendelian Randomization. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 139(4), 395–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13009

123.

Steenbergen

(2020). Multilevel analysis. In Curini

Franzese

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of research methods in political science and international relations (pp. 679–700). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387

124.

Stewart

L. A.

Clarke

Rovers

Riley

R. D.

Simmonds

Stewart

Tierney

J. F.

PRISMA-IPD Development Group . (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: The PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA, 313(16), 1657–1665. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3656

125.

Sutin

A. R.

Luchetti

Stephan

Robins

R. W.

Terracciano

(2017). Parental educational attainment and adult offspring personality: An intergenerational lifespan approach to the origin of adult personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 144–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000137

126.

Tierney

J. F.

Vale

Riley

Smith

C. T.

Stewart

Clarke

Rovers

(2015). Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: Guidance on their use. PLoS Medicine, 12(7), Article e1001855. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001855

127.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics . (2012). International standard classification of education: Isced 2011. UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

128.

Volpe

J. J.

(2009). Brain injury in premature infants: A complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances. The Lancet Neurology, 8(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70294-1

129.

Vukasović

Bratko

(2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000017

130.

Waxman

Van Lieshout

R. J.

Saigal

Boyle

M. H.

Schmidt

L. A.

(2013). Still cautious: Personality characteristics of extremely low birth weight adults in their early 30s. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(8), 967–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.003

131.

Wells

G. A.

Shea

O’Connell

Peterson

Welch

Losos

Tugwell

(2012). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

132.

Wilson

D.B.

(2017). Formulas used by the “Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator ”. https://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/downloads/esformulas.pdf

133.

Wilson

D.B.

(2023). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/index.php

134.

Wolke

Johnson

Mendonça

(2019). The life course consequences of very preterm birth. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-084804

135.

Wolke

Meyer

(1999). Cognitive status, language attainment, and prereading skills of 6-year-old very preterm children and their peers: The Bavarian Longitudinal Study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 41(2), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162299000201

136.

Wood

N. S.

Marlow

Costeloe

Gibson

A. T.

Wilkinson

A. R.

(2000). Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. EPICure Study Group. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(6), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200008103430601

137.

C. C.

Samanez-Larkin

G. R.

Katovich

Knutson

(2014). Affective traits link to reliable neural markers of incentive anticipation. NeuroImage, 84, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.055

138.

Potenza

M. N.

(2012). White matter integrity and five-factor personality measures in healthy adults. NeuroImage, 59(1), 800–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.040

139.

Zeitlin

Ancel

P. Y.

Saurel‐Cubizolles

M. J.

Papiernik

(2000). The relationship between intrauterine growth restriction and preterm delivery: An empirical approach using data from a European case-control study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 107(6), 750–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13336.x

140.

Zeitlin

Di Lallo

Blondel

Weber

Schmidt

Künzel

Kollée

Papiernik

MOSAIC Research group . (2010). Variability in caesarean section rates for very preterm births at 28–31 weeks of gestation in 10 European regions: Results of the MOSAIC project. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 149(2), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.12.018

141.

Zhu

Woo

S. E.

Porter

Brzezinski

(2013). Pathways to happiness: From personality to social networks and perceived support. Social Networks, 35(3), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.005

142.

Zuckerman

(2012). Biological bases of personality. In Weiner

I. B.

Tennen

Suls

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop205002

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.42 MB

0.70 MB