Prevalence, and Intellectual Outcome of Unilateral Focal Cortical Brain Damage as a Function of Age, Sex and Aetiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurologists and neuropsychologists are aware that aging men are more at risk than women for brain damage, principally because of the well known male-predominant risk for cardiovascular disease and related cerebrovascular accidents. However, a disproportion in prevalence of brain damage between the sexes in childhood may be less suspected. Furthermore, sex-specific risk for other aetiologies of brain damage may be little known, whether in the pediatric or adult populations. Proposals of a sex difference in cognitive recovery from brain damage have also been controversial. Six hundred and thirty five "consecutive" cases with cortical focal lesions including cases of all ages and both sexes were reviewed. Aetiology of the lesion was determined for each case as was postlesion IQ. Risk was highly male prevalent in all age groups, with a predominance of cardiovascular aetiology explaining much of the adult male prevalence. However, several other aetiological categories were significantly male prevalent in juveniles (mitotic, traumatic, dysplasic) and adults (mitotic, traumatic). There was no sex difference in outcome (i.e., postlesion IQ) of these cortical brain lesions for the cohort as a whole, after statistical removal of the influence of lesion extent, aetiology and presence of epilepsy. Mechanisms potentially responsible for sex differences in prevalence, aetiology of brain damage, and recovery, are reviewed and discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".