Group-specific discriminant analysis reveals statistically validated sex differences in lateralization of brain functional network

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05781v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 16:36:07 GMT
• Title: Group-specific discriminant analysis reveals statistically validated sex differences in lateralization of brain functional network
• Abstract summary: Group-Specific Discriminant Analysis (GSDA) developed for first-order classification. Group-Specific Discriminant Analysis (GSDA) developed for first-order classification.
• Score: 7.01314545449491
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Lateralization is a fundamental feature of the human brain, where sex differences have been observed. Conventional studies in neuroscience on sex-specific lateralization are typically conducted on univariate statistical comparisons between male and female groups. However, these analyses often lack effective validation of group specificity. Here, we formulate modeling sex differences in lateralization of functional networks as a dual-classification problem, consisting of first-order classification for left vs. right functional networks and second-order classification for male vs. female models. To capture sex-specific patterns, we develop the Group-Specific Discriminant Analysis (GSDA) for first-order classification. The evaluation on two public neuroimaging datasets demonstrates the efficacy of GSDA in learning sex-specific models from functional networks, achieving a significant improvement in group specificity over baseline methods. The major sex differences are in the strength of lateralization and the interactions within and between lobes. The GSDA-based method is generic in nature and can be adapted to other group-specific analyses such as handedness-specific or disease-specific analyses.

Related papers

• A Mechanistic Analysis of Gender Sensitivity in Dense Retrieval Models [68.90383874606164]
  We analyze bi-encoder models to localize gender sensitivity, finding that the signal originates in input embeddings and propagates through a small set of late-layer attention heads.<n>Our findings provide a mechanistic basis for targeted debiasing and highlight the challenge of disentangling gender from relevance signals in shared model components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T23:33:01Z)
• GKnow: Measuring the Entanglement of Gender Bias and Factual Gender [47.39675194552945]
  gknow is a benchmark to assess gender knowledge and gender bias in language models across different types of gender-related predictions.<n>We test the impact of neuron ablation on benchmarks for disentangling stereotypical and factual gender.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T15:52:30Z)
• Differential Subgroup Discovery: Characterizing Where Two Populations Differ, and Why [36.94047915240195]
  We study the problem of understanding where two populations differ within a feature space.<n> Differential subgroups reveal the regions of the feature space where population-level gaps are most pronounced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T11:31:42Z)
• Gender Inclusivity Fairness Index (GIFI): A Multilevel Framework for Evaluating Gender Diversity in Large Language Models [7.1675038717352795]
  We present a comprehensive evaluation of gender fairness in large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce the Gender Inclusivity Fairness Index (GIFI), a novel and comprehensive metric that quantifies the diverse gender inclusivity of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T15:43:16Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Identifying latent disease factors differently expressed in patient subgroups using group factor analysis [54.67330718129736]
  We propose a novel approach to uncover subgroup-specific and subgroup-common latent factors. The proposed approach, sparse Group Factor Analysis (GFA) with regularised horseshoe priors, was implemented with probabilistic programming.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T13:12:14Z)
• GenderBias-\emph{VL}: Benchmarking Gender Bias in Vision Language Models via Counterfactual Probing [72.0343083866144]
  This paper introduces the GenderBias-emphVL benchmark to evaluate occupation-related gender bias in Large Vision-Language Models. Using our benchmark, we extensively evaluate 15 commonly used open-source LVLMs and state-of-the-art commercial APIs. Our findings reveal widespread gender biases in existing LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T05:55:15Z)
• Slicing Through Bias: Explaining Performance Gaps in Medical Image Analysis using Slice Discovery Methods [5.274804664403783]
  We use Slice Discovery Methods to identify interpretable underperforming subsets of data and hypotheses regarding the cause of observed performance disparities. Our study demonstrates the effectiveness of SDMs in hypothesis formulation and yields an explanation of previously observed but unexplained performance disparities between male and female patients.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T23:08:46Z)
• Are Sex-based Physiological Differences the Cause of Gender Bias for Chest X-ray Diagnosis? [2.1601966913620325]
  We investigate the causes of gender bias in machine learning-based chest X-ray diagnosis. In particular, we explore the hypothesis that breast tissue leads to underexposure of the lungs. We propose a new sampling method which addresses the highly skewed distribution of recordings per patient in two widely used public datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-09T10:19:51Z)
• The Role of Subgroup Separability in Group-Fair Medical Image Classification [18.29079361470428]
  We find a relationship between subgroup separability, subgroup disparities, and performance degradation when models are trained on data with systematic bias such as underdiagnosis. Our findings shed new light on the question of how models become biased, providing important insights for the development of fair medical imaging AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T06:06:47Z)
• Stable Bias: Analyzing Societal Representations in Diffusion Models [72.27121528451528]
  We propose a new method for exploring the social biases in Text-to-Image (TTI) systems. Our approach relies on characterizing the variation in generated images triggered by enumerating gender and ethnicity markers in the prompts. We leverage this method to analyze images generated by 3 popular TTI systems and find that while all of their outputs show correlations with US labor demographics, they also consistently under-represent marginalized identities to different extents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-20T19:32:49Z)
• Towards Explaining Demographic Bias through the Eyes of Face Recognition Models [6.889667606945215]
  Biases inherent in both data and algorithms make the fairness of machine learning (ML)-based decision-making systems less than optimal. We aim at providing a set of explainability tool that analyse the difference in the face recognition models' behaviors when processing different demographic groups. We do that by leveraging higher-order statistical information based on activation maps to build explainability tools that link the FR models' behavior differences to certain facial regions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-29T07:23:06Z)
• rfPhen2Gen: A machine learning based association study of brain imaging phenotypes to genotypes [71.1144397510333]
  We learned machine learning models to predict SNPs using 56 brain imaging QTs. SNPs within the known Alzheimer disease (AD) risk gene APOE had lowest RMSE for lasso and random forest. Random forests identified additional SNPs that were not prioritized by the linear models but are known to be associated with brain-related disorders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-31T20:15:22Z)
• LOGAN: Local Group Bias Detection by Clustering [86.38331353310114]
  We argue that evaluating bias at the corpus level is not enough for understanding how biases are embedded in a model. We propose LOGAN, a new bias detection technique based on clustering. Experiments on toxicity classification and object classification tasks show that LOGAN identifies bias in a local region.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:42:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.