1. Bzdok, D. Classical statistics and statistical learning in imaging neuroscience. Frontiers in Neuroscience 11, 543 (2017).
2. Wang, L., Shen, H., Tang, F., Zang, Y. & Hu, D. Combined structural and resting-state functional MRI analysis of sexual dimorphism in the young adult human brain: An MVPA approach. Neuroimage 61, 931–940 (2012).
3. Luo, Z., Hou, C., Wang, L. & Hu, D. Gender Identification of Human Cortical 3-D Morphology Using Hierarchical Sparsity. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13, 29 (2019).
4. Anderson, N. E. et al. Machine learning of brain gray matter differentiates sex in a large forensic sample. Human Brain Mapping (2018). doi:10.1002/hbm.24462
5. Sanchis-Segura, C., Ibañez-Gual, M. V., Aguirre, N., Gómez-Cruz, Á. J. & Forn, C. Effects of different intracranial volume correction methods on univariate sex differences in grey matter volume and multivariate sex prediction. Sci. Rep. 10, (2020).
6. Rosenblatt, J. . Multivariate revisit to ‘sex beyond the genitalia’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2016). doi:10.1073/pnas.1523961113
7. Feis, D. L., Brodersen, K. H., von Cramon, D. Y., Luders, E. & Tittgemeyer, M. Decoding gender dimorphism of the human brain using multimodal anatomical and diffusion MRI data. Neuroimage 70, 250–257 (2013).
8. Chekroud, A. M., Ward, E. J., Rosenberg, M. D. & Holmes, A. J. Patterns in the human brain mosaic discriminate males from females. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2016). doi:10.1073/pnas.1523888113
9. Joel, D. et al. Analysis of Human Brain Structure Reveals that the Brain “Types” Typical of Males Are Also Typical of Females, and Vice Versa. Front. Hum. Neurosci. (2018). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00399
10. Sepehrband, F. et al. Neuroanatomical morphometric characterization of sex differences in youth using statistical learning. Neuroimage 172, 217–227 (2018).
11. Van Putten, M. J. A. M., Olbrich, S. & Arns, M. Predicting sex from brain rhythms with deep learning. Sci. Rep. (2018). doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21495-7
12. Xin, J., Zhang, Y., Tang, Y. & Yang, Y. Brain Differences Between Men and Women: Evidence From Deep Learning. Front. Neurosci. 13, 185 (2019).
13. Zhang, C., Dougherty, C. C., Baum, S. A., White, T. & Michael, A. M. Functional connectivity predicts gender: Evidence for gender differences in resting brain connectivity. Hum. Brain Mapp. 39, 1765–1776 (2018).
14. Zhang, Y., Luo, Q., Huang, C. C., Lo, C. Y. Z., Langley, C., Desrivières, S., ... & IMAGEN consortium. (2021). The Human Brain Is Best Described as Being on a Female/Male Continuum: Evidence from a Neuroimaging Connectivity Study. Cereb. Cortex. (2021). doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa408
15. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J. & Rucker, D. D. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol. Methods (2002). doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19
16. Altman, D. G. & Royston, P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. British Medical Journal (2006). doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080
17. Harrell, F. E. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic. (Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2015).
18. Sanchis-Segura, C. et al. Sex differences in gray matter volume: How many and how large are they really? Biol. Sex Differ. (2019). doi:10.1186/s13293-019-0245-7
19. Williams, C. M., Peyre, H., Toro, R. & Ramus, F. Neuroanatomical norms in the <scp>UK</scp> Biobank: The impact of allometric scaling, sex, and age. Hum. Brain Mapp. hbm.25572 (2021). doi:10.1002/HBM.25572
20. More, S., Eickhoff, S. B., Caspers, J. & Patil, K. R. Confound Removal and Normalization in Practice: A Neuroimaging Based Sex Prediction Case Study. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics) 12461 LNAI, 3–18 (2020).
21. Liu, D., Johnson, H. J., Long, J. D., Magnotta, V. A. & Paulsen, J. S. The power-proportion method for intracranial volume correction in volumetric imaging analysis. Front. Neurosci. (2014). doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00356
22. Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. et al. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage (2002). doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0978
23. Rousselet, G. A., Pernet, C. R. & Wilcox, R. R. Beyond differences in means: robust graphical methods to compare two groups in neuroscience. Eur. J. Neurosci. (2017). doi:10.1111/ejn.13610
24. Wilcox, R. R. & Rousselet, G. A. A Guide to Robust Statistical Methods in Neuroscience. Curr. Protoc. Neurosci. (2018). doi:10.1002/cpns.41
25. Callaert, H. Nonparametric hypotheses for the two-sample problem. J. Stat. Educ. 7, (1999).
26. M. Handcock, M. M. Relative distribution methods. Sociol. Methodol. (1998). doi:10.1111/0081-1750.00042
27. Schmid, M. et al. Boosted Beta Regression. PLoS One (2013). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061623
28. Hancox-Li, L. Robustness in Machine Learning Explanations: Does It Matter? (2020). doi:10.1145/3351095.3372836
29. Cohen, J. The Cost of Dichotomization. Appl. Psychol. Meas. (1983). doi:10.1177/014662168300700301
30. Joel, D. et al. Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2015). doi:10.1073/pnas.1509654112
31. Gelman, A. & Park, D. K. Splitting a predictor at the upper quarter or third and the lower quarter or third. Am. Stat. (2009). doi:10.1198/tast.2009.0001
32. Lippa, R. & Connelly, S. Gender Diagnosticity: A New Bayesian Approach to Gender-Related Individual Differences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 1051–1065 (1990).
33. Phillips, O. R. et al. Beyond a Binary Classification of Sex: An Examination of Brain Sex Differentiation, Psychopathology, and Genotype. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry (2019). doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2018.09.425
34. Eijk, L. van et al. Are sex differences in human brain structure associated with sex differences in behaviour? doi:10.31234/OSF.IO/8FCVE
35. Grissom, R. J. & Kim, J. J. Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications, second edition. Effect Sizes for Research: Univariate and Multivariate Applications, Second Edition (Routledge, Multivariate application tests, 2012). doi:10.4324/9780203803233
36. Handcock, Mark S.; Morris, M. Relative Distribution Methods in the Social Sciences. Relative Distribution Methods in the Social Sciences (1999). doi:10.1007/b97852
37. Del Giudice, M. Measuring sex differences and similarities. in Gender and sexuality development: Contemporary theory and research. (ed. VanderLaan, D.P.; Wong, W. I.) (2019).
38. Tukey, J. W. Exploratory Data Analysis. (Addison-Wesley, 1977). doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7976-6
39. Cook, Di., Lee, E. K. & Majumder, M. Data Visualization and Statistical Graphics in Big Data Analysis. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application (2016). doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-041715-033420
40. Del Giudice, M., Lippa, R. A., Puts, P. D. A. & Bailey, Drew H J. Bailey, Michael P. Schmitt, D. Mosaic Brains? A Methodological Critique of Joel et al. (2015) Online document. (2015). doi:DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1038.8566.
41. Joel, D. Beyond the binary: Rethinking sex and the brain. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2021). doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.018
42. Eliot, L., Ahmed, A., Khan, H. & Patel, J. Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. (2021). doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.026
43. Joel, D. Beyond sex differences and a male–female continuum: Mosaic brains in a multidimensional space. in Handbook of Clinical Neurology (2020). doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-64123-6.00002-3
44. Portney, L. G. . & Watkins, M. P. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. (Pearson/ Prentice Hall, 2009).
45. Breiman, L. Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures. Stat. Sci. 16, 199–231 (2001).
46. Giudice, M. Del. The Prediction-Explanation Fallacy: A Pervasive Problem in Scientific Applications of Machine Learning. doi:10.31234/OSF.IO/4VQ8F
47. Joel, D. et al. Analysis of human brain structure reveals that the brain “types” typical of males are also typical of females, and vice versa. Front. Hum. Neurosci. (2018). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00399
48. Weis, S. et al. Sex Classification by Resting State Brain Connectivity. Cereb. Cortex 30, 824–835 (2020).
49. Van Essen, D. C. et al. The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview. Neuroimage (2013). doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041
50. Hastie, Trevor, Tibshirani, Robert, Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning The Elements of Statistical LearningData Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Second Edition. Springer series in statistics (2009). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7
51. Bzdok, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. Exploration, Inference, and Prediction in Neuroscience and Biomedicine. Trends in Neurosciences (2019). doi:10.1016/j.tins.2019.02.001
52. Ali, A., Shamsuddin, S. M. & Ralescu, A. L. Classification with class imbalance problem: A review. Int. J. Adv. Soft Comput. its Appl. (2015).
53. García, V., Sánchez, J. S., Mollineda, R. A. & Sotoca, R. A. J. M. The class imbalance problem in pattern classification and learning. Data Eng. (2007).
54. Ali, S. & Smith-Miles, K. A. Improved support vector machine generalization using normalized input space. in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (2006). doi:10.1007/11941439-40
55. Kiang, M. Y. A comparative assessment of classification methods. Decis. Support Syst. (2003). doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00110-0
56. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S Fourth edition by. World (2002). doi:10.2307/2685660
57. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,. (2020).
58. Stephen Milborrow. Derived from mda:mars by Trevor Hastie, With, R. T. U. A. M. F. utilities & Wrapper., T. L. leaps. earth: Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines. R package version 5.1.2. (2019).
59. Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News (2002).
60. Karatzoglou, A., Hornik, K., Smola, A. & Zeileis, A. kernlab - An S4 package for kernel methods in R. J. Stat. Softw. (2004). doi:10.18637/jss.v011.i09
61. Wasserstein, R. L. & Lazar, N. A. The ASA’s Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. Am. Stat. 70, 129–133 (2016).
62. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behav. Res. (1999). doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_2
63. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300 (2018).
64. Hochberg, Y. A sharper bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75, 800–802 (1988).
65. Pastore, M. & Calcagnì, A. Measuring distribution similarities between samples: A distribution-free overlapping index. Front. Psychol. (2019). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01089
66. Pastore, M. Overlapping: a R package for Estimating Overlapping in Empirical Distributions. J. Open Source Softw. (2018). doi:10.21105/joss.01023
67. Cliff, N. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychol. Bull. (1993). doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494
68. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. Model-agnostic interpretability of machine learning. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1606.05386. (2016).
69. Lipton, Z. C. The mythos of model interpretability. Commun. ACM (2018). doi:10.1145/3233231
70. Carvalho, D. V., Pereira, E. M. & Cardoso, J. S. Machine learning interpretability: A survey on methods and metrics. Electronics (Switzerland) (2019). doi:10.3390/electronics8080832
71. Ferrari, S. L. P. & Cribari-Neto, F. Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. J. Appl. Stat. (2004). doi:10.1080/0266476042000214501
72. Mayr, A. et al. The betaboost package—a software tool for modelling bounded outcome variables in potentially high-dimensional epidemiological data. Int. J. Epidemiol. (2018). doi:10.1093/ije/dyy093
73. Hubert, L. Kappa revisited. Psychol. Bull. (1977). doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.2.289
74. Andrés, M. & Hernández, Á. Multi-rater delta: extending the delta nominal measure of agreement between two raters to many raters. arXiv (2019).
75. Andrés, A. M. & Marzo, P. F. Delta: A new measure of agreement between two raters. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. (2004). doi:10.1348/000711004849268
76. Lin, L. I.-K. A Concordance Correlation Coefficient to Evaluate Reproducibility. Biometrics (1989). doi:10.2307/2532051
77. Kendall, M. G. & Smith, B. B. The Problem of $m$ Rankings. Ann. Math. Stat. (1939). doi:10.1214/aoms/1177732186
78. Gamer, M; Lemon, J; Fellows, I; Singh, P. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement.R package version 0.84.1. (2019).
79. Koo, T. K. & Li, M. Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. (2016). doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
80. Hallgren, K. A. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. (2012). doi:10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
81. Tofallis, C. Add or Multiply? A Tutorial on Ranking and Choosing with Multiple Criteria. INFORMS Trans. Educ. (2014). doi:10.1287/ited.2013.0124
82. CLARKE, K. R. Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117–143 (1993).
83. Lindley, D. V. A statistical paradox. Biometrika 44, 187–192 (1957).
84. Kassambara, A; Mundt, A. factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. (2020).
85. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, G.; Friendly, M.; Kondt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlin, D.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Simpson, G.L.; Solymos, P.; Stevens, M.H.M; Szoecs, E.; Wagner, H. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2020).
86. Canty, A.; Ripley, B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. (2020).