I'm a neuroscientist. I scanned my own brain 26 times to see how it changed during pregnancy.
I'm a researcher who specializes in learning and memory, and I use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) regularly in my work. But the tables turned, and I ended up becoming the subject of a study of the human brain during pregnancy when I was trying to conceive.
I was inspired by Laura Pritschet, a graduate student working at the University of California, Santa Barbara, under my colleague, Emily Jacobs. Pritschet had recently finished a study on herself on how the menstrual cycle impacts the brain, and it made me think I should do the same during my pregnancy journey in 2019.
I went through in vitro fertilization, so I had a great idea of the timing of my pregnancy. All that was left to do was to track myself, and I did — over 26 MRI scans.
I'm used to doing MRIs quite a bit, given my field. I know that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that MRIs are not linked with pregnancy risk and are the imaging techniques of choice when they're needed during pregnancy.
MRI uses a magnet, and there are no injections or radiation. There are no known risks, but we looked at studies of people who had done MRIs during pregnancy for medical reasons, and there were no safety concerns. I did want to be cautious about sound, so we put some foam in the machine as an added precaution to muffle the sound the scanner makes.
After that, I worked with my collaborators to come up with the protocols that would be needed for the scans. It ended up being that I simply made appointments to be in the MRI scanner and to do blood draws as well. I tried to time the blood draws to happen just before the scans so the data would be gathered as close together as possible.
The MRI sessions weren't short. We did about six or seven different scans each time, ultimately taking about 40 minutes each. I did 26 scans overall, which means I spent more than 1,000 minutes in an MRI scanner before, during and after my pregnancy.
During each scan, I had to get set up, be positioned well and just try to get comfortable. Later on in my pregnancy, it was more important just to be comfortable.
I had to lay still and stay awake for one of the scans, so I would just think about whatever I wanted during that time. We made a point to do that scan first, and it usually was over in 10 minutes. After that, I would just rest or fall asleep during the other scans. I usually slept — I was pregnant, after all.
The research on my brain was eventually published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, featuring photos and breakdowns of all of my scans. We saw some noticeable changes to my brain over time.
One big standout was in the volume of gray matter in my brain. Gray matter is a type of tissue that's mostly responsible for processing memory, along with sensory perception, speech and decision-making. The gray matter decreased about 4%, and those changes are pretty permanent. In tracking this, we could see a steady decrease and a slight bounce back in volume, but it never really fully returned. I haven't noticed a change in how I think, though.
We also looked at white matter, which acts as the 'superhighway' in the brain to form big connections. We think of this as the road information travels on. Here, we found an interesting change where the structural integrity of white matter improved and peaked around the second trimester before returning to baseline after my baby was born. Again, I didn't notice a difference in how I thought or felt during this time.
The purpose of the study was to look for changes in the brain during pregnancy. It's 2025, and it's shocking how little we know about some of these things. There were basically no studies on brain changes during pregnancy, so it was up to us to do the research. But we don't know yet what these findings mean.
We don't know if these brain changes are good or not. There is some suggestion that these changes are adaptive, morphing the brain on purpose to help with maternal care. But it could also be a trade-off. The body may be saying, 'We've got other things to do here. Sorry, brain!' and shuttling vital resources away from the brain to other areas. So, we really don't know. Now, we need to find out what all of this means.
General interest in this area of research has opened up, and there's been a very big response in the research community to our work. We're now working with other people and plan to do another round with a bigger sample of 10 to 15 pregnant women. After that, we'll scan hundreds of pregnant women but with fewer time points.
I'm lucky that I had no major issues with postpartum depression, but estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that up to one in eight women do. We're keeping an eye toward postpartum depression with our research and who is most vulnerable. The hope is that we can help to identify how the risks of postpartum depression change during pregnancy along with where, when and how we can help to prevent it.
Ultimately, the big thing is that we actually did the study and asked the questions. This is a huge area of research that has been overlooked — and we're actively trying to change that.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Saving lives no more — RFK risks us all in targeting mRNA vaccine research
Showing that his loyalty to his own anti-vax mentality is greater than his loyalty to President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the dangerous quack atop the Department of Health and Human Services, has announced that he will be rescinding a half billion dollars in grants and contracts for the development of mRNA technology and vaccines. It was mRNA that was key to both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna COVID vaccines that were created under Trump in his first term, but RFK does not like life-saving vaccines and so he's pulling the plug. Part of the problem with policymaking at the level of the federal government is that the impacts are often too large, too long-winded, too abstract to really be able to nearly encompass their full breadth, particularly for busy people who have their own immediate concerns to worry about. In this case, though, we can point to very clear, very grim and almost unavoidable repercussions directly caused by this decision: many people worldwide — including in the United States — will die deaths that could have been prevented. Setting aside all of the jargon, at its most basic level a vaccine is about allowing the body to ward off or survive pathogens that would otherwise be extremely dangerous and debilitating or kill a person outright. The model itself is far from new; inoculations in some form of another, including the basic utilization of a dead virus to create antibodies that can attack a live one, date back centuries. What's mainly changed since then is that we have only advanced our understanding and technology to keep infectious diseases from running rampant in our society. One such technological leap was the mRNA process, an innovation so significant that its pioneers won the Nobel prize. The effectiveness and the safety of this process has been well-documented in research settings, but we don't even have to parse the studies to know this because we all collectively lived it. As Trump's Operation Warp Speed produced, the first and most widespread COVID inoculations were mRNA-based vaccines, which enabled us to blunt the rampaging pandemic and much more quickly return our society to a semblance of normalcy. Those COVID vaccines have already been synthesized, but the real issue here are the ones that haven't, or even the inoculations for viruses that we have not even identified or think to be a threat today. Whether we like it or not, our relationship to infectious diseases is something akin to an arms race, in which we are constantly trying to counteract pathogens that, by dint of evolution, are constantly finding ways to elude our defenses and sicken us. We've stayed largely on top of this arms race over the last six decades or so in particular because of constant efforts that have developed sophisticated tools to fight back, including mRNA. A disarmament here for no other reason than ideologically-driven conspiracy that drives Bobby Kennedy is going to mean that we give the diseases an opening, which they will no doubt exploit to sicken and kill us. There are quite simply no two ways about it, and any pause in the research could have dire consequences, even if it is reversed later. Ongoing and sometimes multimonth or even multiyear projects will lose funding and might have to be shut down, with all their efforts wasted. There's no way to really put the genie back in the bottle so we have to stop it in the first place, which means RFK must be fired immediately or impeached and removed by Congress. Many lives hang in the balance. _____
Fast Company
22 minutes ago
- Fast Company
How tech pinpoints urban heat islands and makes cooling projects easier
It's summer, and it's been hot, even in northern cities such as Boston. But not everyone is hit with the heat in the same way, even within the same neighborhood. Take two streets in Boston at 4:30 p.m. on a recent day, as an example. Standing in the sun on Lewis Place, the temperature was 94 degrees Fahrenheit (34.6 degrees Celsius). On Dudley Common, it was 103 F. Both streets were hot, but the temperature on one was much more dangerous for people's health and well-being. The kicker is that those two streets are only a few blocks apart. The difference epitomizes the urban heat island effect, created as pavement and buildings absorb and trap heat, making some parts of the city hotter. A closer look at the two streets shows some key differences: Dudley Common is public open space sandwiched between two thoroughfares that create a wide expanse of pavement lined with storefronts. There aren't many trees to be found. Lewis Place is a residential cul-de-sac with two-story homes accompanied by lots of trees. This comparison of two places within a few minutes' walk of each other puts the urban heat island effect under a microscope. It also shows the limits of today's strategies for managing and responding to heat and its effects on public health, which are generally attuned to neighborhood or citywide conditions. Even within the same neighborhood, some places are much hotter than others owing to their design and infrastructure. You could think of these as urban heat islets in the broader landscape of a community. Sensing urban heat islets Emerging technologies are making it easier to find urban heat islets, opening the door to new strategies for improving health in our communities. While the idea of reducing heat across an entire city or neighborhood is daunting, targeting specific blocks that need assistance the most can be faster and a much more efficient use of resources. Doing that starts with making urban heat islets visible. In Boston, I'm part of a team that has installed more than three dozen sensors across the Roxbury neighborhood to measure temperature every minute for a better picture of the community's heat risks, and we're in the process of installing 25 more. The Common SENSES project is a collaboration of community-based organizations, including the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative and Project Right Inc.; university researchers like me who are affiliated with Northeastern University's Boston Area Research Initiative; and Boston city officials. It was created to pursue data-driven, community-led solutions for improving the local environment. Data from those sensors generate a real-time map of the conditions in the neighborhood, from urban heat islets like Dudley Common to cooler urban oases, such as Lewis Place. These technologies are becoming increasingly affordable and are being deployed in communities around the world to pinpoint heat risks, including Miami, Baltimore, Singapore, and Barcelona. There are also alternatives when long-term installations prove too expensive, such as the U.S.'s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration volunteer science campaign, which has used mobile sensors to generate onetime heat maps for more than 50 cities. Making cooler communities, block by block Although detailed knowledge of urban heat islets is becoming more available, we have barely scratched the surface of how they can be used to enhance people's health and well-being. The sources of urban heat islets are rooted in development—more buildings, more pavement, and fewer trees result in hotter spaces. Many projects using community-based sensors aspire to use the data to counteract these effects by identifying places where it would be most helpful to plant trees for shade or install cool roofs or cool pavement that reflect the heat. However, these current efforts do not fully capitalize on the precision of sensors. For example, Los Angeles's massive investment in cool pavement has focused on the city broadly rather than overheated neighborhoods. New York City's tree planting efforts in some areas failed to anticipate where trees could be successfully planted. Most other efforts compare neighborhood to neighborhood, as if every street within a neighborhood experiences the same temperature. London, for example, uses satellite data to locate heat islands, but the resolution isn't precise enough to see differences block by block. In contrast, data pinpointing the highest-risk areas enables urban planners to strategically place small pocket parks, cool roofs, and street trees to help cool the hottest spaces. Cities could incentivize or require developers to incorporate greenery into their plans to mitigate existing urban heat islets or prevent new ones. These targeted interventions are cost-effective and have the greatest potential to help the most people. But this could go further by using the data to create more sophisticated alert systems. For example, the National Weather Service's Boston office released a heat advisory for July 25, 2025, the day I measured the heat in Dudley Common and Lewis Place, but the advisory showed nearly the entirety of the state of Massachusetts at the same warning level. What if warnings were more locally precise? On certain days, some streets cross a crucial threshold—say, 90 F—whereas others do not. Sensor data capturing these hyperlocal variations could be communicated directly to residents or through local organizations. Advisories could share maps of the hottest streets or suggest cool paths through neighborhoods. There is increasing evidence of urban heat islets in many urban communities and even suburban ones. With data showing these hyperlocal risks, policymakers and project coordinators can collaborate with communities to help address areas that many community members know from experience tend to be much hotter than surrounding areas in summer. As one of my colleagues, Nicole Flynt of Project Right Inc., likes to say, 'Data + Stories = Truth.' If communities act upon both the temperature data and the stories their residents share, they can help their residents keep cool—because it's hot out there.
Medscape
22 minutes ago
- Medscape
Pediatric Sleep Screener Boosts Diagnoses, Referrals
Children's poor sleep is associated with obesity, academic problems, suicide attempts, and other mental health concerns, but the issue is not consistently addressed in pediatric primary care. A new well-child-visit screening tool for primary care clinicians (PCCs) appears to help boost diagnosis and referrals, according to findings from a study published in JAMA Network Open . Ariel A. Williamson, PhD, with The Ballmer Institute for Children's Behavioral Health, University of Oregon, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues tested an electronic, age-based sleep screener that evaluated infant bed sharing, snoring three nights a week, short sleep time, perceived sleep problems, and adolescent daytime sleepiness. The researchers conducted a retrospective, observational case-control study in the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania primary care network of 31 practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; 27 in suburban/rural settings and four in metropolitan settings. During implementation, 204,872 patients completed the screening, with adoption in 89.5% of all well-child visits. The screening indicated that 9.7% of patients had frequent snoring, 12.2% had sleep problems, and 34.4% had insufficient sleep. Bed sharing was reported for 6.5% of infants and 14.7% of adolescents reported daytime sleepiness. The identification of sleep problems was followed by provision of family education resources. Sleep Disorder Diagnosis 64% More Likely With Screener Compared with the pre-implementation period, at well-child visits with a completed sleep screener, PCCs were significantly more likely to make a sleep disorder diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.56-1.73), order a polysomnogram (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.32-3.20), and refer to sleep clinics (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 5.03-8.34) or otolaryngology (OR, 4.46; 95% CI, 3.95-5.02). Rupali Drewek, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist and co-medical director of the Sleep Medicine Program at Phoenix Children's in Phoenix, who was not involved with the study, told Medscape Medical News the screener is promising and its proactive approach — even in children with no obvious symptoms — allows for earlier intervention and improved quality of life. 'Sleep problems affect up to half of children at some point,' she said, 'yet they are rarely addressed unless parents bring them up. Implementing a standardized screening tool during routine pediatric visits ensures systematic identification of issues that might otherwise go unnoticed. Taking action early can lead to better health, better school performance, and less stress for families and the healthcare system.' Adding a new screening tool should fit easily into a regular checkup without slowing workflow substantially, she said. 'It offers a scalable, low‑cost solution to reach millions of children.' Educating the medical team will be important to successful implementation, she said. 'Everyone on the care team needs to know how to read the results and what to do next if a child's answers show there might be a sleep problem.' Lessening Healthcare Inequities In an accompanying editorial, Sarah M. Honaker, PhD, with the Department of Pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Stephen M. Downs, MD, MS, with the Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, North Carolina, said the screener, 'offers a refreshing departure from this pattern of asking PCCs to know more and do more. [T]his is an opportune time to study the implementation of systems that will support PCCs in providing evidence-based care.' The editorialists wrote that the broad screening at well-child visits could help lessen healthcare inequities. They noted that children from minoritized backgrounds with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely, for instance, to have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and are less likely to receive timely, evidence-based care. 'For example, Black children are two to four times more likely to have OSA and less likely to receive a [polysomnogram] referral,' they wrote. One of the main unanswered questions, Honaker and Downs wrote, is how much the educational components help once the problems have been identified and whether guidance about sleep duration results in actual improvements in sleep duration. A key strength of the work is replicability in other health systems, with individual adaptations, the editorialists noted. '[T]he system designed by Williamson and colleagues offers an excellent starting point for other healthcare systems seeking to support PCCs in prevention, identification, and management of pediatric sleep disruption,' they wrote. Williamson reported receiving honoraria from the National Sleep Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Wesleyan University and an honorarium and travel support from The Pennsylvania State University, outside the submitted work. This study was supported by the Possibilities Project at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Honaker reported receiving consulting fees from Covington LLC; grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; equity ownership of For Dreamers LLC; and grants from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation outside the submitted work. Downs reported that he is the co-creator of the Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA) software and cofounder of Digital Health Solutions LLC, which licenses CHICA. Drewek reported no relevant financial relationships.
