ArticleBiology of sex differences2016
Our evolving science: studying the influence of sex in preclinical research.
Article in Biology of sex differences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determination of the rat estrous cycle vased on EfficientNet.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- "International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Sex bias in preclinical research and an exploration of how to change the status quo.British journal of pharmacology · 2019Review
- Sex Differences in Human and Animal Toxicology.Toxicologic pathology · 2017Review
- Sex-Divergent Clinical Outcomes and Precision Medicine: An Important New Role for Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Review
- Considering Sex as a Biological Variable Will Be Valuable for Neuroscience Research.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2016Article
- Balance of the Sexes: Addressing Sex Differences in Preclinical Research.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2016Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The policy announcement by the National Institutes of Health that sex should be considered as a relevant variable in preclinical research has sparked considerable debate. This debate has largely centered on specific concerns regarding how the policy will be implemented. However, others have reacted to the new policy by calling into question the capacity of preclinical science to generate data that can be useful to human health. This commentary examines the basis for this contention and maintains that it is essential to expand our scientific efforts to include the influence of sex on the biology and behavior that is studied in preclinical investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.