Sex-related Differences In Cortical Inhibition In Healthy And Concussed Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been consistently demonstrated that females report greater numbers of concussions in sex-comparable sports and take longer to recover from concussion than males. However, it is unknown if the neurophysiological consequences of concussion may contribute to these sex differences in concussion symptoms and recovery. PURPOSE: To examine potential sex-related differences in neurophysiology in heathy and concussed individuals. METHODS: Twenty-one (9 F) concussed individuals (20.9 ± 4.1 years; CONC) and 21 age-, sex-, height-, weight-, and activity-matched controls (21.2 ± 4.2 years; CONT) participated in the study. The CONC group reported to the lab within 72 hours, 1- and 2-weeks post-injury and the CONT group followed a similar measurement schedule. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude and cortical silent period (CSP) duration was measured from the first dorsal interosseous muscle to assess corticospinal excitability and cortical inhibition, respectively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences across time (p ≥ 0.06) or between the CONC and CONT group in MEP amplitude (p = 0.55) or CSP duration (p = 0.54). Overall, males (119.1 ± 29.9 ms) had significantly longer CSP durations compared with females (101.2 ± 33.4 ms), indicating greater cortical inhibition in males, regardless of group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: An important and novel finding of this study was the lack of differences in these neurophysiological measures between males and females following concussion. To our knowledge, this is the first study to document greater cortical inhibition in males compared with females.
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 | 0.001 | 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".