Search

In a segregated society, marked by a historical background of inequalities, there is a consistent under-representation of ethnic and racial minorities in biomedical research, causing disparities in understanding genetic and acquired diseases as well as in the effectiveness of clinical treatments affecting different groups. The repeated inclusion of small and non-representative samples of the population in neuroimaging research has led to generalization bias in the morphological characterization of the human brain. A few brain morphometric studies between Whites and African Americans have reported differences in orbitofrontal volumetry and insula cortical thickness. Nevertheless, these studies are mostly conducted in small samples and populations with cognitive impairment. For this reason, this study aimed to identify brain morphological variability due to racial identity in representative samples. We hypothesized that, in neurotypical young adults, there are differences in brain morphometry between participants with distinct racial identities. We analyzed the Human Connectome Project (HCP) database to test this hypothesis. Brain volumetry, cortical thickness, and cortical surface area measures of participants identified as Whites ( n  = 338) or African Americans ( n  = 56) were analyzed. Non-parametrical permutation analysis of covariance between these racial identity groups adjusting for age, sex, education, and economic income was implemented. Results indicated volumetric differences in choroid plexus, supratentorial, white matter, and subcortical brain structures. Moreover, differences in cortical thickness and surface area in frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital brain regions were identified between groups. In this regard, the inclusion of sub-representative minorities in neuroimaging research, such as African American persons, is fundamental for the comprehension of human brain morphometric diversity and to design personalized clinical brain treatments for this population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Atilano-Barbosa and Barrios.)

Cheating forms part of a complex emotional and cognitive process. However, although a relatively mundane phenomenon, instruments to evaluate cheating and its effects socially are scarce. This paper presents a five-stage approach aimed at providing validity to an instrument designed to assess cheating - specifically, its detection, and emotional reactions towards it once detected. An instrument was designed after (1) reviewing the relevant literature on cheating, in order to (2) design a bank of stimuli, (3) formulate a Delphi panel to judge the most coherent and pertinent ones, and (4) perform three pilot studies to adjust the final version of the instrument. Results from Stages 1 to 4 show that content validity was achieved for the Instrument for Detecting Cheating and its Emotional Reactions (INDETRAE, in Spanish: Instrumento para la Detección de Trampa y sus Reacciones Emocionales ). Stimuli were grouped into five categories of 18 different scenarios, for a total of 90 vignettes: meaning, the INDETRAE is a 5-category, vignette-based questionnaire consisting of contrasting social cost-benefit scenarios, where the cheating situation affects an undefined, a first or a third person, and also a neutral category with no cheating. In Stage 5, several chi-squared tests ( p < 0.0005) revealed significant differences between categories, proving that the instrument can indeed be used to detect cheating and to identify differentiated emotional reactions - for example, anger when there was detriment to a third person as opposed to neutral situations, or glad when there was a case of cheating which benefited the first person. The last stage counts as the first approximation to support construct validity of the INDETRAE. The most important contribution of this work consists in developing an instrument to detect cheating, confirmed by the resulting emotional reactions, which therefore demonstrate its validity., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Hernández-Chávez, García-Campos, Sarabia-López, Atilano-Barbosa, Rosales-Lagarde and Bautista-Díaz.)