Brain metabolic differences as a function of hemisphere, writing hand preference, and gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 35 university-educated normal men (24 right handwriters and 11 left handwriters) and 36 age- and education-matched women (25 right handwriters and 11 left handwriters) underwent a proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy examination in seven 8 cm(3) voxels including the right and left frontal lobe tips, the right and left mid-temporal lobes, the right and left thalami, and the hypothalamus. Dependent measures were N-acetylaspartate (NAA), choline-containing compounds (Cho) and creatine/phosphocreatine (Cr) metabolite peak area ratios relative to total H(2)O. As expected, thalamic grey matter contained higher NAA ratios than telencephalic voxels (containing white and grey matter) (p < .001). The thalamic Cr/ H(2)O ratio was higher on the right, but the opposite asymmetry was observed for the temporal lobe (p < .05). Women had a higher left frontal NAA/ H(2)O ratio than men, but men had a higher hypothalamic NAA/ H(2)O ratio than women. Right-handers had a higher temporal lobe NAA/H(2)O ratio than left-handers, particularly in the left hemisphere. In addition, several significant 2- and 3-way interactions between writing hand preference, gender, and hemisphere were observed, but only in the frontal lobe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".