A cross-species analysis of neuroanatomical covariance sex differences in humans and mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Structural covariance in brain anatomy is thought to reflect inter-regional sharing of developmental influences - although this hypothesis has proved hard to causally test. Here, we use neuroimaging in humans and mice to study sex-differences in anatomical covariance - asking if regions that have developed shared sex differences in volume also show shared sex differences in volume covariance. This study design illuminates both the biology of sex-differences and theoretical models for anatomical covariance – benefitting from tests of inter-species convergence. We find that volumetric structural covariance is stronger in adult females compared to adult males for both wild-type mice and healthy human subjects: 98% of all comparisons with statistically significant covariance sex differences in mice are female-biased, while 76% of all such comparisons are female-biased in humans (q < 0.05). In both species, a region’s covariance and volumetric sex-biases have weak inverse relationships to each other: volumetrically male-biased regions contain more female-biased covariations, while volumetrically female-biased regions have more male-biased covariations (mice: r = -0.185, p = 0.002; humans: r = -0.189, p = 0.001). Our results identify a conserved tendency for females to show stronger neuroanatomical covariance than males, evident across species, which suggests that stronger structural covariance in females could be an evolutionarily conserved feature that is partially related to volumetric alterations through sex. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Structural covariance is a potent readout of coordinated brain development, but hard to probe experimentally. We use sex differences as a naturally occurring test for developmental theories of structural covariance – adopting a cross-species approach for validation and translational benefit. Brain MRI reveals two conserved features of anatomical covariance across humans and mice: (i) tighter inter-regional coordination of brain development in females as evidenced by stronger volume covariance; (ii) a tendency for female-biased covariance to involve regions that are smaller in females – suggesting a previously unknown counterbalancing between these two distinct modes of sex-biased brain organization. These findings advance understanding of coordinated brain development and sex difference in a cross-species framework – facilitating future translational research on both topics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".