Cited by 855Sex and Gender in HealthcareAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants

Open access
Ritchie, Stuart J, Cox, Simon R, Shen, Xueyi, Lombardo, Michael V, Reus, Lianne M, Alloza, Clara, Harris, Mathew A, Alderson, Helen L +10 more·2018·Cerebral Cortex

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Sex differences in the human brain are of interest for many reasons: for example, there are sex differences in the observed prevalence of psychiatric disorders and in some psychological traits that brain differences might help to explain. We report the largest single-sample study of structural and functional sex differences in the human brain (2750 female, 2466 male participants; mean age 61.7 years, range 44-77 years). Males had higher raw volumes, raw surface areas, and white matter fractional anisotropy; females had higher raw cortical thickness and higher white matter tract complexity. There was considerable distributional overlap between the sexes. Subregional differences were not fully attributable to differences in total volume, total surface area, mean cortical thickness, or height. There was generally greater male variance across the raw structural measures. Functional connectome organization showed stronger connectivity for males in unimodal sensorimotor cortices, and stronger connectivity for females in the default mode network. This large-scale study provides a foundation for attempts to understand the causes and consequences of sex differences in adult brain structure and function.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bhy109

Cites

125 of 125 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Andersson J Jenkinson M Smith S Non-linear registration aka spatial normalisation. Internal Technical Report TR07JA2 Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford University Oxford, UK 2007
  2. Andersson J Smith S Jenkinson M Non-linear optimisation. Internal Technical Report TR07JA1 Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford University Oxford, UK 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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., Liewald, D. C. M., Auyeung, B., Whalley, H. C., Lawrie, S. M., Gale, C. R., Bastin, M. E., McIntosh, A. M., & Deary, I. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Queen Margaret Hospital (GB)
  • NHS Lothian (GB)
  • Department of Psychology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  • Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Corresponding author
Ritchie, Stuart J
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2018-05-16
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
2959-2975
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2952574438
Cited by
855
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 75 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 138 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 6
FWCI
88.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • CCACE (MR/K026992/1)
  • MRC (MR/M013111/1)
  • Dementias Platform UK (MR/L015382/1)
  • STRADL (104036/Z/14/Z)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
sex differences, adult human brain, brain structure, brain function, brain volume, cortical thickness, white matter fractional anisotropy, functional connectome, default mode network, sensorimotor cortex, UK Biobank
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen, Rest, Sex Characteristics, Biological Specimen Banks, Community Health Planning, Connectome, White Matter

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