Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Letter

On the mis-presentation and misinterpretation of gender-related data: The case of Ingalhalikar’s human connectome study

Daphna Joel and Ricardo Tarrasch
PNAS February 11, 2014 111 (6) E637; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323319111
Daphna Joel
aSchool of Psychological Sciences,
bSagol School of Neuroscience, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: djoel@post.tau.ac.il
Ricardo Tarrasch
bSagol School of Neuroscience, and
cSchool of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

This Letter has a Reply and related content. Please see:

  • Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain - December 02, 2013
  • Reply to Joel and Tarrasch: On misreading and shooting the messenger - January 29, 2014
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In a PNAS paper on the human connectome, Ingalhalikar et al. conclude that their “results reveal fundamental sex differences in the structural architecture of the human brain” and link these differences to behavioral sex differences (1). Others have previously referred to the difficulties in linking sex differences in brain structure to sex differences in behavior (2). We would like to focus here on the selective choice of data that forms the basis for such strong conclusions. Specifically, Ingalhalikar et al. claim that they have found “fundamentally different connectivity patterns in males and females” (1), with males having greater intrahemispheric connectivity and females, greater interhemispheric connectivity. Indeed, inspection of figure 2A in ref. 1, which depicts over one brain the connections that were stronger in males compared with females, and over another brain the connections that were stronger in females compared with males, clearly gives this impression. However, does this impression present a loyal picture of the human connectome? Clearly figure 2 in ref. 1 does not represent reality, as in reality both males and females have both intra- and interhemispheric connections. The authors only found a difference between the strength of some of these connections—that is, a quantitative difference—yet they present it as a qualitative one. Moreover, Ingalhalikar et al. do not provide any data that can help the reader evaluate the size of the differences and therefore corroborate the authors’ conclusion that these differences are indeed fundamental. Specifically, the authors do not provide the number of connections (of the 95 × 95 assessed) that show a sex difference, so we do not know whether the two genders were mainly similar or mainly different. Nor do Ingalhalikar et al. provide any estimate of the size of these differences (such as Cohen’s d) that is needed to evaluate the extent of overlap between the distribution of the strength of these connections in males and in females. Such information is needed to determine whether the statistically significant differences are also meaningful. It should be stressed that for any given difference between means, there is a sample size for which this difference will be statistically significant. For example, in a behavioral study in which the imaging subjects were a subset (3), Cohen’s d as small as 0.02 (i.e., the difference between the means of males and females was 2% of the SD) were statistically significant because of the large sample size [∼3,500; the highest Cohen’s d in that study was 0.33 (3)].

In sum, instead of data that will enable the reader to judge whether the sex differences found are meaningful, the reader is left with figure 2 in ref. 1, which depicts in a dichotomous way only the connections whose strength was found to be different in males and females. No wonder the main message the reader is left with is of a “male brain” and a “female brain” that seem to have been taken from subjects from different galaxies, not just from different planets.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: djoel{at}post.tau.ac.il.
  • Author contributions: R.T. and D.J. analyzed data; and D.J. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ingalhalikar M,
    2. et al.
    (2014) Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(2):823–828.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. de Vries GJ,
    2. Södersten P
    (2009) Sex differences in the brain: The relation between structure and function. Horm Behav 55(5):589–596.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Gur RC,
    2. et al.
    (2012) Age group and sex differences in performance on a computerized neurocognitive battery in children age 8–21. Neuropsychology 26(2):251–265.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
On the mis-presentation and misinterpretation of gender-related data: The case of Ingalhalikar’s human connectome study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Mis-presentation of gender-related data
Daphna Joel, Ricardo Tarrasch
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2014, 111 (6) E637; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1323319111

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Mis-presentation of gender-related data
Daphna Joel, Ricardo Tarrasch
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2014, 111 (6) E637; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1323319111
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 111 (6)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Neuroscience

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Surgeons hands during surgery
Inner Workings: Advances in infectious disease treatment promise to expand the pool of donor organs
Despite myriad challenges, clinicians see room for progress.
Image credit: Shutterstock/David Tadevosian.
Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Double helix
Journal Club: Noncoding DNA shown to underlie function, cause limb malformations
Using CRISPR, researchers showed that a region some used to label “junk DNA” has a major role in a rare genetic disorder.
Image credit: Nathan Devery.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Multi-color molecular model
Enzymatic breakdown of PET plastic
A study demonstrates how two enzymes—MHETase and PETase—work synergistically to depolymerize the plastic pollutant PET.
Image credit: Aaron McGeehan (artist).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490