MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200057907 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab410

Influence of gonadal steroids on cortical surface area in infancy

2021· article· en· W4200057907 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Mary Alex, Tom Ruvio, Kai Xia, Shaili C. Jha, Jessica B. Girault, Li Wang, Gang Li, Dinggang Shen, Emil Cornea, Martin Styner, John H. Gilmore, Rebecca Knickmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthJohn and Polly Sparks FoundationEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)Digit ratioEndocrinologyInternal medicineHormoneGestationBiologyPhysiologyMedicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex differences in the human brain emerge as early as mid-gestation and have been linked to sex hormones, particularly testosterone. Here, we analyzed the influence of markers of early sex hormone exposure (polygenic risk score (PRS) for testosterone, salivary testosterone, number of CAG repeats, digit ratios, and PRS for estradiol) on the growth pattern of cortical surface area in a longitudinal cohort of 722 infants. We found PRS for testosterone and right-hand digit ratio to be significantly associated with surface area, but only in females. PRS for testosterone at the most stringent P value threshold was positively associated with surface area development over time. Higher right-hand digit ratio, which is indicative of low prenatal testosterone levels, was negatively related to surface area in females. The current work suggests that variation in testosterone levels during both the prenatal and postnatal period may contribute to cortical surface area development in female infants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207