Alex R. DeCasien

The presence, magnitude, and significance of sex differences in the human brain are hotly debated topics in the scientific community and popular media. This debate is largely fueled by studies containing strong, opposing conclusions: either little to no evidence exists for sex differences in human neuroanatomy, or there are small-to-moderate differences in the size of certain brain regions that are highly reproducible across cohorts (even after controlling for sex differences in average brain size). Our Commentary uses the specific comparison between two recent large-scale studies that adopt these opposing views-namely the review by Eliot and colleagues (2021) and the direct analysis of ~ 40k brains by Williams and colleagues (2021)-in an effort to clarify this controversy and provide a framework for conducting this research. First, we review observations that motivate research on sex differences in human neuroanatomy, including potential causes (evolutionary, genetic, and environmental) and effects (epidemiological and clinical evidence for sex-biased brain disorders). We also summarize methodological and empirical support for using structural MRI to investigate such patterns. Next, we outline how researchers focused on sex differences can better specify their study design (e.g., how sex was defined, if and how brain size was adjusted for) and results (by e.g., distinguishing sexual dimorphisms from sex differences). We then compare the different approaches available for studying sex differences across a large number of individuals: direct analysis, meta-analysis, and review. We stress that reviews do not account for methodological differences across studies, and that this variation explains many of the apparent inconsistencies reported throughout recent reviews (including the work by Eliot and colleagues). For instance, we show that amygdala volume is consistently reported as male-biased in studies with sufficient sample sizes and appropriate methods for brain size correction. In fact, comparing the results from multiple large direct analyses highlights small, highly reproducible sex differences in the volume of many brain regions (controlling for brain size). Finally, we describe best practices for the presentation and interpretation of these findings. Care in interpretation is important for all domains of science, but especially so for research on sex differences in the human brain, given the existence of broad societal gender-biases and a history of biological data being used justify sexist ideas. As such, we urge researchers to discuss their results from simultaneously scientific and anti-sexist viewpoints.

Reproduction and survival in most primate species reflects management of both competitive and cooperative relationships. Here, we investigated the links between neuroanatomy and sociality in free-ranging rhesus macaques. In adults, the number of social partners predicted the volume of the mid-superior temporal sulcus and ventral-dysgranular insula, implicated in social decision-making and empathy, respectively. We found no link between brain structure and other key social variables such as social status or indirect connectedness in adults, nor between maternal social networks or status and dependent infant brain structure. Our findings demonstrate that the size of specific brain structures varies with the number of direct affiliative social connections and suggest that this relationship may arise during development. These results reinforce proposed links between social network size, biological success, and the expansion of specific brain circuits.