Back

Fractionation of sex differences in human cortical anatomy

Lee, H. M.; Liu, S.; Guma, E.; Levitis, E.; Shafee, R.; Dugan, G.; Lalonde, F. M.; Clasen, L.; DeCasien, A.; Chakravarty, M.; Lerch, J.; Wagstyl, K.; Delaney, A.; Raznahan, A.

2025-09-11 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.09.10.675377 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Humans show reproducible sex differences in regional cortical volume (CV), but it remains unclear how these arise from underlying sex-biases in the two biologically dissociable determinants of CV: surface area (SA) and cortical thickness (CT). Moreover, limited access to experimental methods in humans has hindered direct studies of the causal drivers of regional sex differences in the human cortex, although rodent models have argued for both chromosomal and gonadal contributions to sex-biased mammalian cortical development. Here, we first use structural neuroimaging data in two independent human cohorts (combined N=1,754; 967 females) to quantify and spatially resolve the differential contributions of SA and CT to observed sex differences in CV. These dissociable facets of sex-biased cortical organization are highly reproducible and align with distinct functional networks and histo-molecular signatures. We then leverage complementary neuroimaging data in clinical case-control cohorts (combined N=313) featuring variations in X and Y chromosome dosage (sex chromosome aneuploidies) and testicular hormone production (isolated GnRH deficiency) to establish that regions of sex-biased CV, SA and CT in humans are enriched for congruent anatomical effects of X-chromosome dosage (e.g., primary sensory and insular cortices) and gonadal hormones (e.g. dorsomedial frontal and temporo-parietal-occipital regions). Taken together, these findings substantially advance both the breadth and granularity of our understanding regarding sex-biased cortical organization in humans - disambiguating sex effects on regional CV, SA and CT and nominating their potential genetic and endocrine causes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.