The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Desikan, R. S., Ségonne, F., Fischl, B., Quinn, B. T., Dickerson, B. C., Blacker, D., Buckner, R. L., Dale, A. M., Maguire, R. P., Hyman, B. T., et al. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.021 · Cited by 13,324
Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems
Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2575 · Cited by 11,820
Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations
Rubinov, M., & Sporns, O. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003 · Cited by 11,522
Cortical Surface-Based Analysis
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 · Cited by 10,910
Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples
Nichols, T. E., & Holmes, A. P. (2002) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.1058 · Cited by 6,256
Cortical Surface-Based Analysis
Fischl, B., Sereno, M. I., & Dale, A. M. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0396 · Cited by 6,147
MR diffusion tensor spectroscopy and imaging
Basser, P. J., Mattiello, J., & LeBihan, D. (1994) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(94)80775-1 · Cited by 5,970
Mapping the structural core of human cerebral cortex
Hagmann, P., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Meuli, R., Honey, C. J., Wedeen, V. J., & Sporns, O. (2008) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060159 · Cited by 4,173
Diffusion tensor imaging: Concepts and applications
Le Bihan, D., Mangin, J., Poupon, C., Clark, C. A., Pappata, S., Molko, N., & Chabriat, H. (2001) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.1076 · Cited by 3,547
Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion-weighted MR imaging
Behrens, T. E. J., Woolrich, M. W., Jenkinson, M., Johansen‐Berg, H., Nunes, R. G., Clare, S., Matthews, P. M., Brady, J. M., & Smith, S. M. (2003) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.10609 · Cited by 3,038
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sex differences in anxiety and depression clinical perspectives
Altemus, M., Sarvaiya, N., & Neill Epperson, C. (2014) · Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2014.05.004 · Cited by 1,413
“Sex differences in brain structure and function are abundant and fluctuate across development (Courchesne et al., 2000; Lampl and Jeanty, 2003; Patton et al., 2004; Lenroot et al., 2007; Raznahana et al., 2013; Ingalhalikar et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSex differences in Alzheimer disease — the gateway to precision medicine
for the Women’s Brain Project and the Alzheimer Precision Medicine Initiative, Ferretti, M. T., Iulita, M. F., Cavedo, E., Chiesa, P. A., Schumacher Dimech, A., Santuccione Chadha, A., Baracchi, F., Girouard, H., Misoch, S., et al. (2018) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/s41582-018-0032-9 · Cited by 1,009
Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014) · Gothic.net · doi:10.1177/1529100614541236 · Cited by 1,116
Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants
Ritchie, S. J., Cox, S. R., Shen, X., Lombardo, M. V., Reus, L. M., Alloza, C., Harris, M. A., Alderson, H. L., Hunter, S., Neilson, E., et al. (2018) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy109 · Cited by 855
“2012), and whether such functional differences can be integrated with differences in the structural connectome (Ingalhalikar et al. 2014), remains to be seen.”
BackgroundSex beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic
Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., Shefi, N., Pool, J., Urchs, S., Margulies, D. S., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1509654112 · Cited by 684
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-12-02
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 823-828
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC3896179
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
