MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex-based Differences In Corticospinal Excitability And Inhibition

2024· article· en· W4402662077 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alicia M. Kells, Alexandra N. Pauhl, Anita Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Males and females differ in anatomy and physiology at many levels of the body, including the brain, which could influence the communication from the brain to the muscle, impacting movement control. However, sex-based differences in excitability and inhibition within the corticomotor pathway have not been extensively studied. PURPOSE: To examine sex-based differences in corticospinal excitability and inhibition. METHODS: Thirteen individuals (23.9 ± 2.1 yrs) 8 males, 5 females, participated in the present study. Males were tested around the same time of day in the afternoon and females were tested during the same phase of their menstrual cycle (mid-follicular; day 7.6 ± 0.5). Electromyography was recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle in response to TMS of the contralateral motor cortex. Single-pulse stimuli were used to assess excitability via the motor-evoked potential (MEP) and inhibition via the cortical silent period (CSP). Additionally, paired-pulse stimuli were used to assess excitability via intracortical facilitation (ICF) and inhibition via short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and long-interval intracortical inhibition (LICI). All outcome measures were compared between males and females. RESULTS: Males had similar levels of excitability compared with females via MEP (2.9 ± 1.0 mV vs 3.06 ± 1.37 mV; p = 0.86; d = 0.11) and ICF (68.0 ± 70.7% vs 36.7 ± 100.1%; p = 0.52; d = 0.38). Inhibition was also similar between males and females, as assessed by CSP duration (124.3 ± 30.6 ms vs 91.6 ± 43.9 ms; p = 0.16; d = 0.90), SICI (-62.9 ± 26.0% vs -59.3 ± 30.5%; p = 0.82; d = 0.13), and LICI (-81.4 ± 18.2% vs -71.6 ± 26.4%; p = 0.47; d = 0.46). CONCLUSION: No significant differences in corticospinal excitability or inhibition were observed between males and females, when controlling for lower hormone fluctuation timepoints. However, considering effect sizes, CSP may reach significance with a greater sample size. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) RGPIN-2019-05127

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207