MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3047389143 · doi:10.7554/elife.55684.sa2

Author response: Intrinsic excitation-inhibition imbalance affects medial prefrontal cortex differently in autistic men versus women

2020· peer-review· en· W3047389143 on OpenAlexaff
Stavros Trakoshis, Pablo Martínez‐Cañada, Federico Rocchi, Carola Canella, Wonsang You, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, Amber Ruigrok, Edward T. Bullmore, John Suckling, Marija Markicevic, Valerio Zerbi, Simon Baron‐Cohen, Alessandro Gozzi, Meng‐Chuan Lai, Stefano Panzeri, Michael Lombardo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismPrefrontal cortexPsychologyNeuroscienceExcitatory postsynaptic potentialAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialCognitionCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autism is a condition that is usually diagnosed early in life that affects how a person communicates and socializes, and is often characterized by repetitive behaviors. One key theory of autism is that it reflects an imbalance in levels of excitation and inhibition in the brain. Excitatory signals are those that make other brain cells more likely to become active; inhibitory signals have the opposite effect. In non-autistic individuals, inhibitory activity outweighs excitatory activity. In people with autism, by contrast, an increase in excitatory activity is believed to produce an imbalance in excitation and inhibition. Most of the evidence to support this excitation-inhibition imbalance theory has come from studies of rare mutations that cause autism. Many of these mutations occur on the sex chromosomes or are influenced by androgen hormones (hormones that usually play a role on typically male traits). However, most people with autism do not possess these particular mutations. It was thus unclear whether the theory could apply to everyone with autism or, for example, whether it may better apply to specific groups of individuals based on their sex or gender. This is especially important given that about four times as many men and boys compared to women and girls are diagnosed with autism. Trakoshis, Martínez-Cañada et al. have now found a way to ask whether any imbalance in excitation and inhibition in the brain occurs differently in men and women. Using computer modeling, they identified a signal in brain scans that corresponds to an imbalance of excitation and inhibition. After showing that the technique works to identify real increases in excitation in the brain scans of mice, Trakoshis, Martínez-Cañada et al. looked for this signal, or biomarker, in brain scans of people with and without autism. All the people in the study identified with the gender that matched the sex they were assigned at birth. The results revealed differences between the men and women with autism. Men with autism showed an imbalance in excitation and inhibition in specific ‘social brain' regions including the medial prefrontal cortex, but women with autism did not. Notably, many of these brain regions are strongly affected by androgen hormones. Previous studies have found that women with autism are sometimes better at hiding or ‘camouflaging’ their difficulties when socializing or communicating than men with autism. Trakoshis, Martínez-Cañada et al. showed that the better a woman was at camouflaging her autism, the more her brain activity in this region resembled that of non-autistic women. Excitation-inhibition imbalance may thus affect specific brain regions involved in socializing and communication more in men who have autism than in women with the condition. Balanced excitation and inhibition in these brain areas may enable some women with autism to camouflage their difficulties socializing or communicating. Being able to detect imbalances in activity using standard brain imaging could be useful for clinical trials. Future studies could use this biomarker to monitor responses to drug treatments that aim to adjust the balance between excitation and inhibition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2320.052

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→