Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567385›Full record

ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2023

Classifying sex with volume-matched brain MRI.

Matthis Ebel, Martin Domin, Nicola Neumann, Carsten Oliver Schmidt, Martin Lotze, Mario Stanke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Brain Sex: Differences That Do Not Differentiate.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. "Precision Medicine" and the Failed Search for Binary Brain Sex Differences to Address Gender Behavioral Health Disparities.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025
    Review
  6. Fair Text to Medical Image Diffusion Model with Subgroup Distribution Aligned Tuning.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Matthis EbelUniversity of Greifswald, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, Greifswald, 17489, Germany.
Martin DominUniversity Medicine Greifswald, Functional Imaging, Institute of Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, Greifswald, 17489, Germany.
Nicola NeumannUniversity Medicine Greifswald, Functional Imaging, Institute of Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, Greifswald, 17489, Germany.
Carsten Oliver SchmidtUniversity Medicine Greifswald, Institute for Community Medicine, Greifswald, 17475, Germany.
Martin LotzeUniversity Medicine Greifswald, Functional Imaging, Institute of Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, Greifswald, 17489, Germany.
Mario StankeUniversity of Greifswald, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, Greifswald, 17489, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sex differences in the size of specific brain structures have been extensively studied, but careful and reproducible statistical hypothesis testing to identify them produced overall small effect sizes and differences in brains of males and females. On the other hand, multivariate statistical or machine learning methods that analyze MR images of the whole brain have reported respectable accuracies for the task of distinguishing brains of males from brains of females. However, most existing studies lacked a careful control for brain volume differences between sexes and, if done, their accuracy often declined to 70% or below. This raises questions about the relevance of accuracies achieved without careful control of overall volume. We examined how accurately sex can be classified from gray matter properties of the human brain when matching on overall brain volume. We tested, how robust machine learning classifiers are when predicting cross-cohort, i.e. when they are used on a different cohort than they were trained on. Furthermore, we studied how their accuracy depends on the size of the training set and attempted to identify brain regions relevant for successful classification. MRI data was used from two population-based data sets of 3298 mostly older adults from the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) and 399 mostly younger adults from the Human Connectome Project (HCP), respectively. We benchmarked two multivariate methods, logistic regression and a 3D convolutional neural network. We show that male and female brains of the same intracranial volume can be distinguished with >92% accuracy with logistic regression on a dataset of 1166 matched individuals. The same model also reached 85% accuracy on a different cohort without retraining. The accuracy for both methods increased with the training cohort size up to and beyond 3000 individuals, suggesting that classifiers trained on smaller cohorts likely have an accuracy disadvantage. We found no single outstanding brain region necessary for successful classification, but important features appear rather distributed across the brain.

Indexed as

Convolutional neural networkMachine learningPopulation based dataSex discriminationVoxel based morphometry

Identifiers

PMID40567385
PMCPMC12172721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.