MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038735236 · doi:10.1155/2003/123757

Opposed Left and Right Brain Hemisphere Contributions to Sexual Drive: A Multiple Lesion Case Analysis

2003· review· en· W2038735236 on OpenAlexaff
Claude M. J. Braun, Mathieu Dumont, Julie Duval, Isabelle Hamel, Lucie Godbout

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural Neurology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypersexualityPsychologyLesionTemporal lobeLateralization of brain functionAudiologyDissociation (chemistry)MoodNeuroscienceMedicineEpilepsyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySexual behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain topographical studies of normal men have have shown that sexual excitation is asymmetric in the brain hemispheres. Group studies of patients with unilateral epileptic foci and other studies of patients with unilateral brain lesions have come to the same conclusion. The present study reviewed previously published single case reports of patients with frank hypo or hypersexuality subsequent to a unilateral brain lesion. Hyposexual patients tended to have left hemisphere lesions (primarily of the temporal lobe), and hypersexual patients tended to have right hemisphere lesions (primarily of the temporal lobe) (p < 0.05). We interpret this double dissociation as part of a more general phenomenon of psychic tone similarly dissociated with regard to hemispheric control, including mood, psychomotor baseline, speech rate, and even immunity. The behavioral significance of this psychic tone is to modulate approach versus avoidance behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioural NeurologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207