Cited by 1,223Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesComplex Network Analysis Techniques

Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain

Open access
Ingalhalikar, Madhura, Smith, Alex, Parker, Drew, Satterthwaite, Theodore D., Elliott, Mark A., Ruparel, Kosha, Hakonarson, Hakon, Gur, Raquel E. +2 more·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Sex differences are of high scientific and societal interest because of their prominence in behavior of humans and nonhuman species. This work is highly significant because it studies a very large population of 949 youths (8–22 y, 428 males and 521 females) using the diffusion-based structural connectome of the brain, identifying novel sex differences. The results establish that male brains are optimized for intrahemispheric and female brains for interhemispheric communication. The developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood. The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1316909110

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The number of streamlines (NOS) is a widely used measure to quantify connectivity strength.

    “The number of streamlines (NOS) is one widely used measure to quantify the connectivity strength (Hagmann et al., 2008b; Ingalhalikar et al., 2014; Roberts et al., 2016; Sporns et al., 2005; van Dellen et al., 2018).”

    From Quantitative mapping of the brain’s structural connectivity using diffusion MRI tractography: A review (2022) · cites this paper as Ingalhalikar et al., 2014

    In Materials and Methods (page not provided), the paper uses the number of tracked fibers reaching a target region to calculate a connectivity weight and notes that similar measures appear in previous studies. Its measure is a scaled probability, however, not the raw number of streamlines; the passage therefore does not establish that NOS itself is widely used to quantify connectivity strength. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The most popular scalar value for connectivity matrix analysis is the NOS, where higher values are considered to indicate stronger connectivity between pairs of gray matter regions.

    “The most popular scalar value for connectivity matrix analysis is the NOS (Hagmann et al., 2008b; Ingalhalikar et al., 2014; Roberts et al., 2016; Sporns et al., 2005; van Dellen et al., 2018), where higher values are considered to indicate stronger connectivity between pairs of gray matter regions.”

    From Quantitative mapping of the brain’s structural connectivity using diffusion MRI tractography: A review (2022) · cites this paper as Ingalhalikar et al., 2014

    Materials and Methods (page unavailable) describes a connectivity matrix derived from streamline counts, with higher connection weights treated as greater connectivity. It does not identify the number of streamlines (NOS) as the most popular scalar value; its own matrix entries are scaled pathway probabilities rather than raw streamline counts. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a study of 37 young adults with CAH, alterations in grey matter structure, including the middle frontal gyrus and the parietal and superior occipital cortex were found in CAH patients compared to controls.

    “In a study of 37 young adults with CAH, alterations in grey matter structure, including the middle frontal gyrus and the parietal and superior occipital cortex were found in CAH patients compared to controls (696).”

    From Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia—Current Insights in Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Management (2022) · cites this paper as [696]

    The Results describe a cohort of 949 healthy subjects studied for sex differences in structural connectivity, not a comparison of 37 young adults with CAH and controls. Searches for CAH, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and the claimed grey-matter regions found no passage addressing that finding. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These regions play a role in visuospatial working memory and patients performed worse in visuospatial working memory tasks.

    “These regions play a role in visuospatial working memory and patients performed worse in visuospatial working memory tasks.”

    From Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia—Current Insights in Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Management (2022) · cites this paper as [696]

    The Discussion reports sex differences in spatial memory performance among youths, not poorer visuospatial working-memory performance in patients. The passages on regional connectivity do not establish that the unspecified regions play a role in visuospatial working memory. Searches for patients and visuospatial working memory found no passage addressing either part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ingalhalikar, M., Smith, A., Parker, D., Satterthwaite, T. D., Elliott, M. A., Ruparel, K., Hakonarson, H., Gur, R. E., Gur, R. C., & Verma, R.
Affiliations
  • Section of Biomedical Image Analysis and
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Center for Magnetic Resonance and Optical Imaging, Department of Radiology, and
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-12-02
Volume
111
Issue
2
Pages
823-828
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2009872283
Cited by
1,223
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 101 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 2
FWCI
60.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (K23MH098130)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (RC2MH089983, MH079938, MH089983, K23MH098130, R01MH079938, MH089924, RC2MH089924, MH092862, R01MH092862)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
sex differences, structural connectome, brain connectivity, brain development, diffusion tensor imaging, cerebellar connections, interhemispheric connectivity, network modularity, transitivity, adolescents, youth
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Brain, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Characteristics, Linear Models, Young Adult, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Connectome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review