Sex differences in Variability of Brain Structure Across the Lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several brain disorders exhibit sex differences in onset, presentation, and prevalence. Increased understanding of the neurobiology of sex-based differences across the lifespan can provide insight into potential disease risk and protective mechanisms. We focused on sex-related differences in variability, which may be indicative of both disease vulnerability and resilience. In n=3,069 participants, from 8-95 years of age, we first analyzed the variance ratio in females vs. males of cortical surface area and global and subcortical volumes for discrete brain regions, and found widespread greater variability in males. In contrast, variance in cortical thickness was similar for males and females. Multivariate analysis that accounts for structural covariance supported variance ratio findings. Findings were present from early life and stable with age. We then examined variability among brain regions by sex. We found significant age-by-sex interactions across neuroimaging metrics, whereby in very early life males had reduced among-region variability compared to females, while in very late life this was reversed. Overall, our findings of greater regional variability but less among-region variability in males in early life may aid our understanding of sex-based risk for neurodevelopmental disorders. In contrast, our findings in late life may provide a potential sex-based risk mechanism for dementia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".