MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408310904 · doi:10.1186/s12938-025-01354-z

Sex differences in electrical activity of the brain during sleep: a systematic review of electroencephalographic findings across the human lifespan

2025· review· en· W4408310904 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMedical Engineering OnLine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Arts FoundationPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCertaintyElectroencephalographyObservational studyBrain activity and meditationAlpha (finance)Developmental psychologyBETA (programming language)AudiologyClinical psychologyNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the explosion of techniques for recording electrical brain activity, our recognition of neurodiversity has expanded significantly. Yet, uncertainty exists regarding sex differences in electrical activity during sleep and whether these differences, if any, are associated with social parameters. We synthesised existing evidence applying the PROGRESS-Plus framework, which captures social parameters that may influence brain activity and function. METHODS: We searched five databases from inception to December 2024, and included English language peer-reviewed research examining sex differences in electrical activity during sleep in healthy participants. We performed risk of bias assessment following recommended criteria for observational studies. We reported results on sex differences by wave frequency (delta, theta, alpha, sigma, beta, and gamma) and waveforms (spindle and sawtooth), positioning results across age-related developmental stages. We created visualizations of results linking study quality and consideration of PROGRESS-Plus parameters, which facilitated certainty assessment. RESULTS: Of the 2,783 unique citations identified, 28 studies with a total of 3,374 participants (47% male, age range 4-5 months to 101 years) were included in data synthesis. Evidence of high certainty reported no sex differences in alpha and delta relative power among participants in middle-to-late adulthood. Findings of moderate certainty suggest no sex differences in alpha power; and theta, sigma and beta relative power; and delta density. There is evidence of moderate certainty suggesting that female participants had a steeper delta wave slope and male participants had greater normalized delta power. Evidence that female participants have higher spindle power density is of low certainty. All other findings were regarded as very low in certainty. The PROGRESS-Plus parameters were rarely integrated into the methodology of studies included in this review. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the topic of sex differences in sleep wave parameters is variable. It is possible that the reported results reflect unmeasured social parameters, instead of biological sex. Future research on sex differences in sleep should be discussed in relevance to functional or clinical outcomes. Development of uniform testing procedures across research settings is timely. PROSPERO: CRD42022327644. FUNDING: Canada Research Chairs (Neurological Disorders and Brain Health, CRC-2021-00074); UK Pilot Award for Global Brain Health Leaders (GBHI ALZ UK-23-971123).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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