MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959420579 · doi:10.1002/alz.095592

Sex Differences in Electrical Activity During Sleep: A Synthesis of Brain Wave Data Across Human Life Stages

2025· article· en· W6959420579 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity CollegeUniversity Health NetworkPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlpha (finance)Brain activity and meditationElectroencephalographyHuman brainHuman studiesBETA (programming language)Brain wavesSleep (system call)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the explosion of techniques for recording brain activity, including the analysis of electrical signals generated during sleep, our understanding of neural dynamics has expanded significantly. Yet, uncertainty exists regarding whether there are sex differences in brain activity during sleep across the human lifespan. We aimed to address the gap by analyzing published evidence on the topic. METHOD: We developed a search strategy to capture English language publications on the topic. Medline ALL, Embase Classic + Embase, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, and Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global were searched in November 2021. We included original studies that reported on sex differences in electrical activity in sleep. No restrictions were applied to study methodology or quality. We analyzed results by frequency bands: delta (0.5‐4 Hz), theta (4‐7 Hz), alpha (8‐12 Hz), sigma (12‐16 Hz), beta (13‐13 Hz), and gamma (30‐80+ Hz) waves. We organized results by age bins of human lifespan stages. RESULT: Two independent researchers screened 2,783 citations. We included 29 studies that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most frequently studied sleep activities were delta and theta, reported in 11 studies (38%) each. Eight studies (28%) reported on sex difference in alpha and sigma activity, four (14%) on beta activity, and two (7%) on gamma activity. Within these studies, recording techniques and frequency bands assigned to electrical brain activity varied. The most frequently studied age groups were teenagers (18 studies (62%) focusing on delta and theta waves) and middle to late age adults (10 studies (34%) focusing on delta and alpha waves). No studies reported on sex differences in infancy and early childhood. Age‐dependent results, although inconsistent, supported sex difference around the timing of brain maturation and sex variability during ageing. CONCLUSION: The clinical implications of our findings are challenging to examine since most evidence had no direct links to outcomes. Nonetheless, the findings offer insight on the development of future research on sex difference in electrical activity in sleep that may be used as clinical trial outcomes, considering that cognitive, behavioral, and emotional processes are reported to differ between the sexes as they age. PROSPERO: CRD42022327644

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0560.045
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae ResearchFrench-language works237,207