↓ Skip to main content

Marked effects of intracranial volume correction methods on sex differences in neuroanatomical structures: a HUNT MRI study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Marked effects of intracranial volume correction methods on sex differences in neuroanatomical structures: a HUNT MRI study
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00238
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carl W. S. Pintzka, Tor I. Hansen, Hallvard R. Evensmoen, Asta K. Håberg

Abstract

To date, there is no consensus whether sexual dimorphism in the size of neuroanatomical structures exists, or if such differences are caused by choice of intracranial volume (ICV) correction method. When investigating volume differences in neuroanatomical structures, corrections for variation in ICV are used. Commonly applied methods are the ICV-proportions, ICV-residuals and ICV as a covariate of no interest, ANCOVA. However, these different methods give contradictory results with regard to presence of sex differences. Our aims were to investigate presence of sexual dimorphism in 18 neuroanatomical volumes unrelated to ICV-differences by using a large ICV-matched subsample of 304 men and women from the HUNT-MRI general population study, and further to demonstrate in the entire sample of 966 healthy subjects, which of the ICV-correction methods gave results similar to the ICV-matched subsample. In addition, sex-specific subsamples were created to investigate whether differences were an effect of head size or sex. Most sex differences were related to volume scaling with ICV, independent of sex. Sex differences were detected in a few structures; amygdala, cerebellar cortex, and 3rd ventricle were larger in men, but the effect sizes were small. The residuals and ANCOVA methods were most effective at removing the effects of ICV. The proportions method suffered from systematic errors due to lack of proportionality between ICV and neuroanatomical volumes, leading to systematic mis-assignment of structures as either larger or smaller than their actual size. Adding additional sexual dimorphic covariates to the ANCOVA gave opposite results of those obtained in the ICV-matched subsample or with the residuals method. The findings in the current study explain some of the considerable variation in the literature on sexual dimorphisms in neuroanatomical volumes. In conclusion, sex plays a minor role for neuroanatomical volume differences; most differences are related to ICV.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 26 31%
Psychology 14 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,873
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,853
of 275,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#57
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.