162
submitted 6 months ago by Squire1039@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

This article describes a new study using AI to identify sex differences in the brain with over 90% accuracy.

Key findings:

  • An AI model successfully distinguished between male and female brains based on scans, suggesting inherent sex-based brain variations.
  • The model focused on specific brain networks like the default mode, striatum, and limbic networks, potentially linked to cognitive functions and behaviors.
  • These findings could lead to personalized medicine approaches by considering sex differences in developing treatments for brain disorders.

Additional points:

  • The study may help settle a long-standing debate about the existence of reliable sex differences in the brain.
  • Previous research failed to find consistent brain indicators of sex.
  • Researchers emphasize that the study doesn't explain the cause of these differences.
  • The research team plans to make the AI model publicly available for further research on brain-behavior connections.

Overall, the study highlights the potential of AI in uncovering previously undetectable brain differences with potential implications for personalized medicine.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] orclev@lemmy.world 81 points 6 months ago

I would be curious what this would predict for trans (including those both on and off hormone therapy), intersex, or homosexual individuals. My guess is that at a minimum in those cases it's accuracy of predicting either their gender or sex would be very poor, although it would be absolutely fascinating if it accurately predicted their gender rather than their sex. The opposite result (predicting sex but not gender) would also be interesting but less so.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 55 points 6 months ago

I'd be very interested in those results too, though I'd want everyone to bear in mind the possibility that the brain could have many different "masculine" and "feminine" attributes that could be present in all sorts of mixtures when you range afield from whatever statistical clusterings there might be. I wouldn't want to see a situation where a transgender person is denied care because an AI "read" them as cisgender.

In another comment in this thread I mentioned how men and women have different average heights, that would be a good analogy. There are short men and tall women, so you shouldn't rely on just that.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I have a suspicion that this is exactly what’s going on here and may be why past studies found no differences. AI is much better at quickly synthesizing complex patterns into coherent categories than humans are.

Also, 90% is not that good all things considered. The brain is almost certainly a complex mix of features that defy black and white categorization.

Hopefully we will be wise enough to not require trans people to prove their trans-ness scientifically. People have a right to do what they wish with their bodies and express their gender in a way that feels right to them, and should not be required to match some artificial physical diagnosis of what it means to be trans. Even if it turns out that most trans people do share certain brain structures or patterns. There will always be exceptions and that doesn’t mean we get to label someone’s identity as inauthentic.

[-] metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub 8 points 6 months ago

Unlikely as it might be, maybe the 10% error rate is from gender queer people that haven't realized/faced it yet.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There are a lot of potential explanations. In essence they built a model to categorize brain features into male and female, and then tested this against their label of male or female on each brain. So this could result from problems with the model predictions—or just as easily from their “correct” labeling of each brain as male or female.

So a big question is how did they define male and female? By genetics? By reproductive anatomy? By self reported identity? This information was not in the article. All of these things are very likely correlated with things happening in the brain, but probably not perfectly. It’s worth noting that many definitions of sex do not consider gender identity at all—if such a definition was used, then a trans-man might be labeled female in their data, whether they have reckoned with their identity or not.

[-] knightly@pawb.social 7 points 6 months ago

I looked into this, the study analyzed three pre-existing fMRI datasets.

I wasn't able to find any info on how these projects assessed sex/gender of participants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 months ago

Given any finite data set above a trivially small size/complexity, and an undefined set of criteria, the odds of meaningless patterns appearing are extremely high.

Machine learning algorithms are basically automated P-hackers when misused. Be skeptical of any conclusions drawn from ML that are not otherwise verifiable.

[-] june@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Someone else mentioned the iris test being more accurate but that it also includes the eye area around the iris, including eyelashes and eye shape. That would clearly bias the model.

I wonder if there’s anything else that’s might be giving clues to the machine or if it I limited to what they say it’s determining sex based on. As a trans-nonbinary person myself, I’m very skeptical and anxious about technologies like this leading to biases and prejudices being emboldened.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 months ago

Just a guess but if they labeled training data either male or female then i believe its more likely that it detects biological sex..

But if i they would also label and train on lgbt brains then i bet machine learning can differentiate between all of those.

I bet you can do the same thing with neurodivergent people but you would need to make sure the training data is without error to make me trust it.

[-] parens@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago

There are short men and tall women, so you shouldn’t rely on just that.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Height is a single value. If you trained an AI on that, it would be guessing. A brain has many, many more parameters to take into consideration when going into an artificial neural network.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kromem@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Anecdotally, women develop language earlier than men as children.

The MtF trans person I know most closely was in the 90th percentile for their birth sex in early language development.

I suspect it might well show trans brain differences.

[-] Bizarroland@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago

That's interesting. I and my father are both hyperlexic (as in, taught ourselves to read, in my case, before I could speak) but not trans or autistic.

I wonder how that mixes into the fold?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 41 points 6 months ago

Interesting that it's only 90% accurate but looking at pictures of iris scans it's 98.88% accurate while an ophthalmologist can tell no difference between the scans from males and females.

Source

[-] HejMedDig@feddit.dk 16 points 6 months ago

There are several reasons why the ability to determine gender from iris images is an interesting and potentially useful problem (3). One possible use arises in searching in an authorization database for a match. If the gender of a sample can be determined, it can be used to order the search reduce the average search time. Another possible use arises in social settings, where it may be useful to screen entry to an area based on gender but without recording identity (3). Gender classification is also important for collecting demographic information, for marketing research and for real-time electronic marketing. Yet another possible use is in high-security scenarios, where there may be value in knowing the gender of people who attempt entry but are not recognized as authorized persons.

So useful for marketing, and harassing my trans homies. Fuck that shit!

From a biological standpoint it is still quite fascinating

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I mean the paper you quoted keeps saying "gender" ...Is it actually for affirming trans folks? Big if true but I obviously didn't read the source material.

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

I did get curious and try to dig up if those irises were classified by gender identity or agab, and neither the paper quoted nor the paper they cited as the source clarify on that point. They do only use the word gender, though, never sex.

[-] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 9 points 6 months ago

While the iris study is interesting, looking at their dataset the pictures seem to include the area around the eye a little bit, including eye lashes, so after a cursory glance it seems odd that they even titled it as iris. However I didn’t read the full thing so it cold be that they cropped it somewhere. Although they are using large convolutions so a lot of detail is lost.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I don't doubt that there are inherent differences between the brains of most men and women, but "we can measure these differences" and "these differences are inherent" are two different claims. I don't really get what the article is trying to get at by first claiming the latter and then walking back to the former.

~~btw can someone post the full PDF I can't access it via sci-hub yet~~


Edit: Also a tangential nitpick, but looking at their code I can tell that they're psychiatrists/neuroscientists first and programmers second lol

"CNN Block 1" comment used twice?

They skip layer 5? (Why even keep it in there??)

A linear layer with 2 outputs??? And then they do "_, predicted = torch.max(outputs.data, 1)" in the training script???? JUST USE 1 OUTPUT WITH A SIGMOID I'M BEGGING YOU

And there's a lot going on in the "utilityFunctions.py" file lol

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Good God that utility file.

For the record, I've earned some serious cash essentially chasing around data scientists and whipping their code into production readiness and deployability. So, carry on I guess. I've literally seen code like this that a company relies on, that runs one one dudes laptop (but he's a PhD and the brainz of the product! Lol)

[-] meekah@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago
[-] knightly@pawb.social 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

More like a proof of concept, since they didn't significantly improve upon the accuracy of their predictions compared to prior models.

[-] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 27 points 6 months ago

I'm asking genuinely: is this "AI" or is this "ML," because the latter terms appears more appropriate to me.

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Machine learning has been a subset of artificial inteligence research for decades (like 4 at least).

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

From a technical perspective yeah, but from a colloquial manner AI and ML have been used interchangeably for years. An issue only made worse by AI now frequently being used to describe GenAI which, while ML, behaves in a manner where it's somewhat misleading to use AI/ML/Gen AI interchangeably.

[-] RippleEffect@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

Ai has begun to be used interchangeably with all kinds of automation. Not that I agree with it, but it's the current golden child.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

How can they say the differences are inherent? Wouldn’t you have to control for someone’s entire socialization to say that?

[-] maniclucky@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Clarify why that would be necessary, I'm not following your argument well.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

They can’t rule out the potential explanation that being raised male changes your brain in a different way than being raised female without having subjects that were raised differently than their birth sex. You would have to control for that variable in order to rule it out.

[-] maniclucky@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Many thanks. Obviously, getting brain scans of infants is... difficult, so I wonder if one could proxy that. Maybe feed it brain scans from cultures with significant gender role differences and see if any performance differences are significant?

I'd also be very curious how it sorted transgender individuals. I remember reading something years ago about transgender brains being structured like the sex with which they identify, but that was a long time ago and my critical reading skills have come a long way since then.

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Last I read regarding trans brains: it's a confusing mishmash and unclear if brains are even as sexed as they seem outside of just size. If they are though, it seems like probably trans brains are at least somewhere in between? More research definitely appreciated.

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You can't point to a difference and say it's (directly) caused by chromosomes or the SRY gene or hormones, whatever. Brain differences increase with age, suggesting that they may be more to do with socialisation than genetics. Does this evidence prove that women should be treated differently or is it evidence that women are, in fact, treated differently?

[-] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 months ago

The article touches on your question. It says that it's too earlier to know if the differences are caused by hormones, chromosomes, or socialization. No point in speculating.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

inherent sex-based brain variations

These findings could lead to personalized medicine approaches by considering sex differences in developing treatments for brain disorders.

Yep. There are observable differences and it is good we are increasingly able to take them into account.

[-] knightly@pawb.social 12 points 6 months ago

Found myself a copy of the paper for a read-through and it's immediately obvious to me why they couldn't get above 90% accuracy.

The word "Gender" occurs exactly zero times in the text and the datasets they worked with were divided into a strict sex binary. As a result, the accuracy of their models' predictions could not significantly improve upon prior work in the field.

The only new info here is that their XAN is able to point out the specific brain features that influenced its predictions. Potentially useful with regards to the development of treatments for gendered brain issues in neurotypical people, but anyone who falls outside of the 90th percentile of sexually dimorphic normativity won't see any benefit here.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's not unusual for studies like these to exclude people taking medication, or with any kind of medical condition, such as gender dysphoria, autism ,etc. It's to control as many variables as possible.

(I've personally been excluded from FMRI studies for being autistic and left handed.)

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

It doesn't sound like they excluded trans or genderqueer people, they just ignored their gender. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong, but?

[-] Chuymatt@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago

10% seems a bit more than was predicted, but would that account for those who don’t fit the peaks for the sexual dimorphism definitions, you think?

[-] knightly@pawb.social 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I think so. With a more diverse dataset and fewer binary assumptions baked into the analysis I think we'd start seeing the bimodal contours of a spectrum between the masculine and feminine peaks. The graphics included in the study seem to hint at this, showing nodes of similarity with a tapering tail toward the middle of the distribution for all three sets of data they analyzed:

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2 points 6 months ago

IIRC Simon Baron Cohen's studies on his (IMHO poorly named) extreme male brain theory of autism found that only 70% of men had "male brains".

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
162 points (87.5% liked)

Technology

58123 readers
4031 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS