MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387700270 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-44871-4

Females exhibit smaller volumes of brain activation and lower inter-subject variability during motor tasks

2023· article· en· W4387700270 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin W. Andrushko, Shie Rinat, Eric D. Kirby, Julia Dahlby, Chelsea Ekstrand, Lara A. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of LethbridgeSimon Fraser UniversityVancouver Coastal Health
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsSubject (documents)Computer scienceNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineBiologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past work has shown that brain structure and function differ between females and males. Males have larger cortical and sub-cortical volume and surface area (both total and subregional), while females have greater cortical thickness in most brain regions. Functional differences are also reported in the literature, yet to date little work has systematically considered whether patterns of brain activity indexed with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) differ between females and males. The current study sought to remediate this issue by employing task-based whole brain motor mapping analyses using an openly available dataset. We tested differences in patterns of functional brain activity associated with 12 voluntary movement patterns in females versus males. Results suggest that females exhibited smaller volumes of brain activation across all 12 movement tasks, and lower patterns of variability in 10 of the 12 movements. We also observed that females had greater cortical thickness, which is in alignment with previous analyses of structural differences. Overall, these findings provide a basis for considering biological sex in future fMRI research and provide a foundation of understanding differences in how neurological pathologies present in females vs males.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0080.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207