MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hormone Phase Considerations On Corticospinal Pathway Measures In Males And Females

2025· article· en· W4414241914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alicia M. Kells, Alexandra N. Pauhl, Anita Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationSilent periodExcitatory postsynaptic potentialElectromyographyHormoneFacilitationInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous evidence suggests that hormones may impact excitatory and inhibitory neurophysiological outcomes differently in males and females. However, sex- and hormone-related differences in excitability and inhibition of the corticomotor pathway have not been widely studied. PURPOSE: To examine sex-related differences and hormone phase influences on corticospinal excitability and inhibition. METHODS: Thirty participants, 15 males (23.3 ± 1.3 yrs), 15 females (22.9 ± 2.8 yrs), visited the laboratory for 2 visits, one in each of their high and low hormones phases. Males were tested in the morning and in the afternoon, while females were tested in the mid-follicular and in the mid-luteal phase of their menstrual cycle. Electromyography was recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Single-pulse and paired-pulse stimuli were used to assess excitability via the motor-evoked potential (MEP) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) and inhibition via the cortical silent period (CSP), short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), and long-interval intracortical inhibition (LICI). All outcome measures were compared between phases within each sex and between males and females with averaged phase data. RESULTS: No significant differences in excitability were found between sexes (MEP: p = 0.09, d = 0.65; ICF: p = 0.65, d = 0.17), nor between phases for males (MEP: p = 0.67, d = 0.12; ICF: p = 0.24, d = 0.32) or females (MEP: p = 0.25, d = 0.31; ICF: p = 0.95, d = 0.02). Males displayed greater inhibition compared to females in SICI (p = 0.004, d = -1.15) and LICI (p = 0.008, d = -1.12) but not CSP (p = 0.28, d = 0.40). Within males, inhibition did not differ across phases (CSP: p = 0.13, d = 0.41; SICI: p = 0.33, d = 0.26; LICI: p = 0.70, d = 0.11). In females CSP (p = 0.04, d = 0.60) indicated greater inhibition in the low hormone phase, however there was no significant difference between phases for the other measures of inhibition (SICI: p = 0.80, d = 0.07; LICI: p = 0.63, d = 0.13). CONCLUSION: These results suggest hormone phase may be an important consideration for CSP, but not for other measures of corticospinal inhibition or for measures of excitability. Supported by: 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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→