4.4 Article

Are there any gender differences in the hippocampus volume after head-size correction? A volumetric and voxel-based morphometric study

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 570, 期 -, 页码 119-123

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.04.013

关键词

Head-size correction; MRI; VBM; Volumetry; Gender difference; Hippocampus

资金

  1. Hungarian Research Fund [OTKA K105357, OTKA PD103964]
  2. PTE [AOK-KA-2013/12]
  3. PTE AOK-KA [2011/34039/KA-OTKA/11-10]
  4. Hungarian Brain Research Program [KTIA_13_NAP-A-II/9, SROP-4.2.2/A-11/1/KONV-2012-0017]
  5. Bolyai Scholarship
  6. Romhanyi Scholarship
  7. Magyary Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous findings on normal sexual dimorphism in hippocampal volume have not always been consistent. This study investigated gender differences in hippocampal volume using different head-size correction strategies. T1-weighted MR images were collected in 99 healthy, Caucasian, university students (66 female subjects; mean age: 23.1 +/- 2.3, range: 19-31 years). Sexual dimorphism in hippocampus was investigated by automated MRI volumetry and voxel-based morphometry (VBM) using both general linear model (GLM) and proportion head-size correction strategies. Absolute hippocampal volumes were larger in men than women. After adjusting for head-size, the proportion method indicated larger hippocampi in women than men, while no gender differences were found using the GLM approach. Investigating absolute hippocampal volumes in 15 head-size matched pairs of males and females indicated no gender differences. We suggest that there is no sexual dimorphism in hippocampal size and the apparent gender differences found by the proportion method may have more to do with head-size than with sex. The GLM and proportion head-size correction strategies are not interchangeable and may yield different results. The importance of the present findings is mostly related to scientific reproducibility across MRI volumetry or VBM studies. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据