Remembering the null hypothesis when searching for brain sex differences.

Human brain sex differences have fascinated scholars for centuries and become a key focus of neuroscientists since the dawn of MRI. We recently published a major review in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews showing that most male-female brain differences in humans are small and few have been reliably replicated. Although widely cited, this work was the target of a critical Commentary by DeCasien et al. (Biol Sex Differ 13:43, 2022). In this response, I update our findings and confirm the small effect sizes and pronounced scatter across recent large neuroimaging studies of human sex/gender difference. Based on the sum of data, neuroscientists would be well-advised to take the null hypothesis seriously: that men and women's brains are fundamentally similar, or "monomorphic". This perspective has important implications for how we study the genesis of behavioral and neuropsychiatric gender disparities.

The idea that men and women have fundamentally different brains has prevailed among scientists and non-scientists alike. MRI studies have been grappling with this for more than three decades but yet to find distinct features that define the "male brain" versus "female brain" across the human species. In seeking the causes of gender disparities in behavior and mental health, scientists need to look well beyond brain structure.

Why and How to Account for Sex and Gender in Brain and Behavioral Research.

Long overlooked in neuroscience research, sex and gender are increasingly included as key variables potentially impacting all levels of neurobehavioral analysis. Still, many neuroscientists do not understand the difference between the terms "sex" and "gender," the complexity and nuance of each, or how to best include them as variables in research designs. This TechSights article outlines rationales for considering the influence of sex and gender across taxa, and provides technical guidance for strengthening the rigor and reproducibility of such analyses. This guidance includes the use of appropriate statistical methods for comparing groups as well as controls for key covariates of sex (e.g., total intracranial volume) and gender (e.g., income, caregiver stress, bias). We also recommend approaches for interpreting and communicating sex- and gender-related findings about the brain, which have often been misconstrued by neuroscientists and the lay public alike.

Breaking the binary: Gender versus sex analysis in human brain imaging.

Despite decades of pursuit, human brain imaging has yet to uncover clear neural correlates of male-female behavioral differences. Given that such behavior does not always align with sex categories, we argue that neuroimaging research may find more success by partitioning subjects along nonbinary gender attributes in addition to sex. We review the handful of studies that have done this, several of which find as good or better association between brain measures and "gender" as they do with "sex." Recent advances in operationalizing "gender" as a multidimensional variable should facilitate such studies, along with discovery-based approaches that mine brain imaging data for gender-associated attributes, independent of sex.

How hype and hyperbole distort the neuroscience of sex differences.

Sex/gender differences in the human brain attract attention far beyond the neuroscience community. Given the interest of nonspecialists, it is important that researchers studying human female-male brain difference assume greater responsibility for the accurate communication of their findings.

Dump the "dimorphism": Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size.

With the explosion of neuroimaging, differences between male and female brains have been exhaustively analyzed. Here we synthesize three decades of human MRI and postmortem data, emphasizing meta-analyses and other large studies, which collectively reveal few reliable sex/gender differences and a history of unreplicated claims. Males' brains are larger than females' from birth, stabilizing around 11 % in adults. This size difference accounts for other reproducible findings: higher white/gray matter ratio, intra- versus interhemispheric connectivity, and regional cortical and subcortical volumes in males. But when structural and lateralization differences are present independent of size, sex/gender explains only about 1% of total variance. Connectome differences and multivariate sex/gender prediction are largely based on brain size, and perform poorly across diverse populations. Task-based fMRI has especially failed to find reproducible activation differences between men and women in verbal, spatial or emotion processing due to high rates of false discovery. Overall, male/female brain differences appear trivial and population-specific. The human brain is not "sexually dimorphic."

Consensus Parameter: Research Methodologies to Evaluate Neurodevelopmental Effects of Pubertal Suppression in Transgender Youth.

Purpose: Pubertal suppression is standard of care for early pubertal transgender youth to prevent the development of undesired and distressing secondary sex characteristics incongruent with gender identity. Preliminary evidence suggests pubertal suppression improves mental health functioning. Given the widespread changes in brain and cognition that occur during puberty, a critical question is whether this treatment impacts neurodevelopment. Methods: A Delphi consensus procedure engaged 24 international experts in neurodevelopment, gender development, puberty/adolescence, neuroendocrinology, and statistics/psychometrics to identify priority research methodologies to address the empirical question: is pubertal suppression treatment associated with real-world neurocognitive sequelae? Recommended study approaches reaching 80% consensus were included in the consensus parameter. Results: The Delphi procedure identified 160 initial expert recommendations, 44 of which ultimately achieved consensus. Consensus study design elements include the following: a minimum of three measurement time points, pubertal staging at baseline, statistical modeling of sex in analyses, use of analytic approaches that account for heterogeneity, and use of multiple comparison groups to minimize the limitations of any one group. Consensus study comparison groups include untreated transgender youth matched on pubertal stage, cisgender (i.e., gender congruent) youth matched on pubertal stage, and an independent sample from a large-scale youth development database. The consensus domains for assessment includes: mental health, executive function/cognitive control, and social awareness/functioning. Conclusion: An international interdisciplinary team of experts achieved consensus around primary methods and domains for assessing neurodevelopmental effects (i.e., benefits and/or difficulties) of pubertal suppression treatment in transgender youth.

Assessment of Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Obeticholic Acid and Caffeine, Midazolam, Warfarin, Dextromethorphan, Omeprazole, Rosuvastatin, and Digoxin in Phase 1 Studies in Healthy Subjects.

INTRODUCTION: Obeticholic acid (OCA), a potent and selective farnesoid X receptor agonist, is indicated for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). We investigated the potential drug-drug interaction effect of OCA on metabolic CYP450 enzymes and drug transporters. METHODS: Five phase 1 single-center, open-label, fixed-sequence, inpatient studies were conducted in healthy adult subjects to evaluate the effect of oral daily doses of 10 or 25 mg OCA on single-dose plasma pharmacokinetics of specific probe substrates for enzymes CYP1A2 (caffeine, R-warfarin), CYP3A (midazolam, R-warfarin), CYP2C9 (S-warfarin), CYP2D6 (dextromethorphan), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), and drug transporters, BCRP/OATP1B1/OATP1B3 (rosuvastatin), and P-gp (digoxin). RESULTS: OCA showed no substantial suppression/inhibition of S-warfarin, digoxin, and dextromethorphan and weak interactions with caffeine, omeprazole, rosuvastatin, and midazolam. The maximal pharmacodynamic responses (E max) to warfarin-based INR, PT, and aPTT were reduced by 11%, 11%, and 1%, respectively, for the 10-mg dose group and by 7%, 7% and 0%, respectively, for the 25-mg dose group. Overall, drugs dosed in combination with OCA were well tolerated, and most adverse events were mild in severity. No clinically important trends were noted in laboratory evaluations, vital signs, or 12-lead ECGs. CONCLUSION: In these studies, OCA showed weak to no suppression/inhibition of metabolic enzymes and drug transporters at the highest recommended therapeutic dose in patients with PBC. On the basis on these analyses, monitoring and maintenance of target INR range are required during coadministration of OCA with drugs that are metabolized by CYP1A2 (R-warfarin). FUNDING: Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Meta-analysis reveals a lack of sexual dimorphism in human amygdala volume.

The amygdala plays a key role in many affective behaviors and psychiatric disorders that differ between men and women. To test whether human amygdala volume (AV) differs reliably between the sexes, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of AVs reported in MRI studies of age-matched healthy male and female groups. Using four search strategies, we identified 46 total studies (58 matched samples) from which we extracted effect sizes for the sex difference in AV. All data were converted to Hedges g values and pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model. Each dataset was further meta-regressed against study year and average participant age. We found that uncorrected amygdala volume is about 10% larger in males, with pooled sex difference effect sizes of g=0.581 for right amygdala (κ=28, n=2022), 0.666 for left amygdala (κ=28, n=2006), and 0.876 for bilateral amygdala (κ=16, n=1585) volumes (all p values < 0.001). However, this difference is comparable to the sex differences in intracranial volume (ICV; g=1.186, p<.001, 11.9% larger in males, κ=11) and total brain volume (TBV; g=1.278, p<0.001, 11.5% larger in males, κ=15) reported in subsets of the same studies, suggesting the sex difference in AV is a product of larger brain size in males. Among studies reporting AVs normalized for ICV or TBV, sex difference effect sizes were small and not statistically significant: g=0.171 for the right amygdala (p=0.206, κ=13, n=1560); 0.233 for the left amygdala (p=0.092, κ=12, n=1512); and 0.257 for bilateral volume (p=0.131, κ=5, n=1629). These values correspond to less than 0.1% larger corrected right AV and 2.5% larger corrected left AV in males compared to females. In summary, AV is not selectively enhanced in human males, as often claimed. Although we cannot rule out subtle male-female group differences, it is not accurate to refer to the human amygdala as "sexually dimorphic."

Sex in Context: Limitations of Animal Studies for Addressing Human Sex/Gender Neurobehavioral Health Disparities.

Many brain and behavioral disorders differentially affect men and women. The new National Institutes of Health requirement to include both male and female animals in preclinical studies aims to address such health disparities, but we argue that the mandate is not the best solution to this problem. Sex differences are highly species-specific, tied to the mating system and social ecology of a given species or even strain of animal. In many cases, animals poorly replicate male-female differences in brain-related human diseases. Sex/gender disparities in human health have a strong sociocultural component that is intimately entangled with biological sex and challenging to model in animals. We support research that investigates sex-related variables in hypothesis-driven studies of animal brains and behavior. However, institutional policies that require sex analysis and give it special salience over other sources of biological variance can distort research. We caution that the costly imposition of sex analysis on nearly all animal research entrenches the presumption that human brain and behavioral differences are largely biological in origin and overlooks the potentially more powerful social, psychological, and cultural contributors to male-female neurobehavioral health gaps.

The human hippocampus is not sexually-dimorphic: Meta-analysis of structural MRI volumes.

Hippocampal atrophy is found in many psychiatric disorders that are more prevalent in women. Sex differences in memory and spatial skills further suggest that males and females differ in hippocampal structure and function. We conducted the first meta-analysis of male-female difference in hippocampal volume (HCV) based on published MRI studies of healthy participants of all ages, to test whether the structure is reliably sexually dimorphic. Using four search strategies, we collected 68 matched samples of males' and females' uncorrected HCVs (in 4418 total participants), and 36 samples of male and female HCVs (2183 participants) that were corrected for individual differences in total brain volume (TBV) or intracranial volume (ICV). Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for left, right, and bilateral uncorrected HCVs and for left and right HCVs corrected for TBV or ICV. We found that uncorrected HCV was reliably larger in males, with Hedges' g values of 0.545 for left hippocampus, 0.526 for right hippocampus, and 0.557 for bilateral hippocampus. Meta-regression revealed no effect of age on the sex difference in left, right, or bilateral HCV. In the subset of studies that reported it, both TBV (g=1.085) and ICV (g=1.272) were considerably larger in males. Accordingly, studies reporting HCVs corrected for individual differences in TBV or ICV revealed no significant sex differences in left and right HCVs (Hedges' g ranging from +0.011 to -0.206). In summary, we found that human males of all ages exhibit a larger HCV than females, but adjusting for individual differences in TBV or ICV results in no reliable sex difference. The frequent claim that women have a disproportionately larger hippocampus than men was not supported.

The trouble with sex differences.

Sex differences in the brain are real and clinically important but often grossly distorted in popular discourse. Considering the public's deep fascination with sex difference research and its impact on issues from mental health to education and workplace equity, neuroscientists should pay greater heed to its misappropriation and to studying how gender enculturation shapes neural function.

Despite increased plasma concentration, inflammation reduces potency of calcium channel antagonists due to lower binding to the rat heart.

1. Rheumatoid arthritis reduces verapamil oral clearance thereby increases plasma concentration of the drug. This coincides with reduced drug effects through an unknown mechanism. 2. The effect of interferon-induced acute inflammation on the pharmacokinetics and electrocardiogram of verapamil (20 mg kg(-1), p.o.) and nifedipine (0.1 mg kg(-1), i.v.) was studied in Sprague-Dawley rats. 3. The effect of both acute and chronic inflammation on radioligand binding to cardiac L-type calcium channels was also investigated. 4. Acute inflammation resulted in increased plasma concentration of verapamil but had no effect on that of nifedipine. Verapamil binding to plasma proteins was unaffected. 5. As has been reported for humans, the increased verapamil concentration coincided with a reduction in the degree to which PR interval is prolonged by the drug. The effect of nifedipine on PR interval was also reduced by inflammation. 6. Maximum binding of (3)H-nitrendipine to cardiac cell membrane was significantly reduced from 63.2+/-2.5 fmol mg(-1) protein in controls to 46.4+/-2.0 in acute inflammation and from 66.8+/-2.2 fmol mg(-1) protein in controls to 42.2+/-2.0 in chronic inflammation. 7. Incubation of the normal cardiac cell membranes with 100 and 1000 pg ml(-1) of rat tissue necrosis factor-alpha did not influence the binding indices to the calcium channels. 8. Our data suggest that the reduced calcium channel responsiveness is because of altered binding to channels.

Efficacy and safety of a once-daily morphine formulation in chronic, moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis pain: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial and an open-label extension trial.

A randomized, 4-week, double-blind trial followed by an open-label extension trial assessed the efficacy and safety of a once-daily, extended-release morphine formulation (Avinza (previously referred to as Morphelan)) in 295 patients with chronic, moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis pain who had failed to obtain adequate pain relief with NSAIDs and acetaminophen. Participants received one of four treatments: Avinza 30 mg once daily (QAM or QPM), MS Contin(R) 15 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily. Patients (n =181) received Avinza QAM or QPM during the 26-week open-label extension trial and could increase their dose to optimize pain control. Avinza and MS Contin reduced pain and improved several sleep measures versus placebo. Analgesic efficacy was comparable between Avinza and MS Contin; however, Avinza QAM demonstrated greater improvements in overall quality of sleep. The most common adverse events were constipation and nausea. The majority of AEs occurred at a similar incidence among the active treatment groups.

Steady-state pharmacokinetic comparison of a new, extended-release, once-daily morphine formulation, Avinza, and a twice-daily controlled-release morphine formulation in patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain.

Extended-release morphine formulations are widely used in the management of chronic pain. Avinza (morphine sulfate extended-release [MSER, Morphelan]) is a new, once-a-day, extended-release morphine formulation designed to reach target concentrations rapidly and maintain concentrations throughout a 24-hour period. The primary objective of this study was to compare the 24-hour steady-state pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of morphine and its metabolites (morphine-6-glucuronide [M6G] and morphine-3-glucuronide [M3G]) following ingestion of MSER once-a-day and MS Contin (controlled-release morphine sulfate [CRM]) twice-a-day in patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain. Ten patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain were recruited into an open-label, multiple-dose, nonrandomized, two-period, single-center study. All patients were stabilized for a minimum of 7 days on a twice-daily dose of CRM associated with an optimal balance between pain control and side effects. Patients were then switched to the closest equivalent once-daily dose of MSER for a minimum of 10 days. Twenty-four hour steady-state PK profiles were obtained on the last day of each treatment period and additional clinical and safety assessments were performed. PK data were normalized to a 100-mg total daily dose prior to statistical analysis. Nine of the 10 patients completed the entire study. MSER and CRM demonstrated similar bioavailability (AUC) of morphine and its metabolites. Compared to CRM, MSER demonstrated a 19% lower maximum concentration (C(max)), a 66% higher minimum concentration (C(min)), and a 44% lower peak-to-trough fluctuation (%FI) over the 24-hour period. In addition, MSER maintained concentrations above 50% and 75% of the C(max) longer than CRM. Clinical efficacy and safety were comparable for MSER and CRM. Once-daily MSER approaches maximum morphine concentration more quickly, approximates maximum concentration longer, and demonstrates less fluctuation in morphine concentration during a 24-hour period than CRM dosed twice daily. The pharmacodynamic implications of this profile deserve further study.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of a sprinkle-dose regimen of a once-daily, extended-release morphine formulation.

BACKGROUND: Morphine sulfate extended-release (MSER) uses a drug-delivery technology that allows once-daily dosing. It is possible to open the MSER capsule and sprinkle the contents on soft food, a potentially useful alternative to the intact capsule in patients who have difficulty swallowing. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the bioavailability of MSER and its metabolites morphine-3-glucuronide and morphine-6-glucuronide after administration of MSER in a sprinkle-dose regimen relative to an intact capsule swallowed whole. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover study, with a 7-day washout period between the 2 dosing days. Healthy volunteers were randomized to receive an intact 60-mg MSER capsule swallowed whole or the contents of a 60-mg MSER capsule sprinkled on applesauce. Blood samples were collected and analyzed for concentrations of morphine and its active glucuronide metabolites. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were calculated and bioequivalence assessed. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs of the ratio of log-transformed values for maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) were within 80% to 125%. RESULTS: Of 30 subjects enrolled, 28 completed the study and were eligible for PK evaluation. Two subjects were withdrawn for reasons unrelated to study treatment. The plasma concentration-time profiles of morphine and its metabolites were superimposable after administration of the 2 regimens. Cmax and total systemic exposure-based on AUC from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC(last)) and AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC(infinity))-were comparable between treatments. The 90% CIs for morphine AUC(last), AUC, and Cmax ratios were 98 to 109, 96 to 106, and 95 to 117, respectively. Similar 90% CIs were obtained for the morphine metabolites. CONCLUSION: In this study in healthy volunteers, sprinkling the entire contents of an MSER capsule onto applesauce and swallowing without chewing was bioequivalent to swallowing an intact MSER capsule.