Whole‐brain dynamics differentiate among cisgender and transgender individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How the brain represents gender identity is largely unknown, but some neural differences have recently been discovered. We used an intrinsic ignition framework to investigate whether there are gender differences in the propagation of neural activity across the whole-brain and within resting-state networks. Studying 29 trans men and 17 trans women with gender incongruence, 22 cis women, and 19 cis men, we computed the capability of a given brain area in space to propagate activity to other areas (mean-ignition), and the variability across time for each brain area (node-metastability). We found that both measurements differentiated all groups across the whole brain. At the network level, we found that compared to the other groups, cis men showed higher mean-ignition of the dorsal attention network and node-metastability of the dorsal and ventral attention, executive control, and temporal parietal networks. We also found higher mean-ignition values in cis men than in cis women within the executive control network, but higher mean-ignition in cis women than cis men and trans men for the default mode. Node-metastability was higher in cis men than cis women in the somatomotor network, while both mean-ignition and node-metastability were higher for cis men than trans men in the limbic network. Finally, we computed correlations between these measurements and a body image satisfaction score. Trans men's dissatisfaction as well as cis men's and cis women's satisfaction toward their own body image were distinctively associated with specific networks in each group. Overall, the study of the whole-brain network dynamical complexity discriminates gender identity groups, functional dynamic approaches could help disentangle the complex nature of the gender dimension in the brain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".