ArticleGigaScience2025
Group-specific discriminant analysis enhances detection of sex differences in brain functional network lateralization.
Article in GigaScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLateralization is the asymmetry in function and cognition between the brain hemispheres, with notable sex differences. Conventional neuroscience studies on lateralization use univariate statistical comparisons between male and female groups, with limited and ineffective validation for group specificity. This article proposes to model sex differences in brain functional network lateralization as a dual-classification problem: first-order classification of left versus right hemispheres and second-order classification of male versus female models. To capture sex-specific patterns, we developed an interpretable group-specific discriminant analysis (GSDA) for first-order classification, followed by logistic regression for second-order classification.
findingsEvaluations on 2 large-scale neuroimaging datasets show GSDA's effectiveness in learning sex-specific patterns, significantly improving model group specificity over baseline methods. Major sex differences were identified in the strength of lateralization and interaction patterns within and between lobes.
conclusionsThe GSDA-based analysis challenges the conventional approach to investigating group-specific lateralization and indicates that previous findings on sex-specific lateralization will need revisits and revalidation. This method is generic and can be adapted for other group-specific analyses, such as treatment-specific or disease-specific studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.