MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117234009 · doi:10.1002/alz70856_100338

Sex differences in white matter hyperintensity pathophysiology

2025· article· en· W7117234009 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Parent, Sophia Osborne, Gabriel A. Devenyi, Aurélie Bussy, Manuela Costantino, Jérémie Fouquet, Daniela Quesada Rodriguez, Mahsa Dadar, Mallar Chakravarty

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathophysiologyHyperintensityWhite matterAnimal studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: White matter hyperintensity (WMH) pathophysiology varies across regions and consists of various degrees of edema, inflammation, demyelination, and axonal degeneration. Notable sex differences in WMH volume have been observed, with women having a higher WMH burden than men starting from midlife, which is hypothesized to be due to the menopausal transition and the consequent reduction in the neuroprotective effects of estrogen. However, a deep characterization of the spatial pathophysiological patterns of WMHs across sexes is lacking. METHOD: We estimated WMH pathophysiology in vivo at a high spatial resolution using microstructural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In the UK Biobank dataset (n = 32,526, 15,144 males, 17,382 females), diffusion- and susceptibility-weighted images were used to derive fluid-, fiber-, and myelin- and iron-sensitive markers. Age- and sex-specific expected values of healthy white matter microstructure were calculated at a voxel-level resolution using normative modeling and used to contrast with WMH microstructural values to derive pathophysiological estimates (Figure 1A). We derived spatial clusters of pathophysiologically similar WMHs by applying spectral clustering to group-level averages of WMH pathophysiology (Figure 1B) resulting in three regions: periventricular, posterior, and anterior (Figure 1C). The median WMH pathophysiology within each region was sampled for each subject. We characterized sex differences in our derived WMH pathophysiological patterns using linear models, controlling for non-linear age effects and correcting p-values using the false discovery rate. RESULT: In general, females showed higher WMH volumes and more severe WMH pathophysiology, with notable exceptions: males showed higher WMH volume and worst orientation dispersion (OD) pathophysiology in posterior WMHs (Figure 2). When investigating WMH pathophysiology for equivalent WMH volume, a clear pattern emerged, with strong effects in females mostly restricted to periventricular and posterior WMHs for most pathophysiological markers. Intriguingly, this was not the case for the OD marker which only showed a significantly higher effect in males in the PV region. CONCLUSION: Taken together, our results show nuanced sex-specific effects in WMHs. There are clear spatial differences, with females having more WMHs but similar pathophysiological effects in anterior WMHs, while males show higher WMH volumes but lower pathophysiological effects in posterior WMHs.

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)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→