Greater variability in rhesus macaque ( <i>Macaca mulatta</i> ) endocranial volume among males than females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The greater male variability (GMV) hypothesis proposes that traits are more variable among males than females, and is supported by numerous empirical studies. Interestingly, GMV is also observed for human brain size and internal brain structure, a pattern which may have implications for sex-biased neurological and psychiatric conditions. A better understanding of neuroanatomical variability in non-human primates may illuminate whether certain species are appropriate models for these conditions. Here, we tested for sex differences in the variability of endocranial volume (ECV, a proxy for brain size) in a sample of 542 rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ) from a large pedigreed free-ranging population. We also examined the components of phenotypic variance (additive genetic and residual variance) to tease apart the potential drivers of sex differences in variability. Our results suggest that males exhibit more variable ECVs, and that this pattern reflects either balancing/disruptive selection on male behaviour (associated with alternative male mating strategies) or sex chromosome effects (associated with mosaic patterns of X chromosome gene expression in females), rather than extended neurodevelopment among males. This represents evidence of GMV for brain size in a non-human primate species and highlights the potential of rhesus macaques as a model for sex-biased brain-based disorders.
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".