LAUSR

Abstract Males and females have been proposed to have different prenatal growth strategies, whereby males invest more in fetal growth and less in placental development, leaving them more susceptible to early-life adversity. We tested predictions of this hypothesis using data from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. Male newborns were heavier than females, but there was no difference in placental weight, adjusting for birthweight. Among infants born prior to 33 weeks, the difference in birthweight between males and females was greater among those who did not survive than among those who did, potentially reflecting a strategy whereby males maintained growth in the face of prenatal insults, while females adjusted growth. However, there was no significant difference in mortality between the sexes. Being born small-for-gestational age or very preterm (prior to 33 weeks) was associated with significantly reduced performance for most of the cognitive traits examined at 7 years, although maternal preeclampsia was associated with reduced performance in fewer traits. Generally, these effects of early-life adversity (poor fetal growth, prematurity, and preeclampsia) did not differ between the sexes. However, analyzing the sexes separately (rather than testing the interaction between sex and adversity) resulted in numerous spurious sex-specific effects, whereby the effect of early-life adversity appeared to be significant in one sex but not the other. Overall, we found little support for the hypothesis that males prioritize growth more than females, and that this makes them more susceptible to early-life adversity. Furthermore, our results show that analyzing the sexes separately, rather than testing the adversity by sex interaction, can be highly misleading.