Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31143365›Full record

ReviewCommunicative & integrative biology2019

Nature, Calcigender, Nurture: Sex-dependent differential Ca

Arnold De Loof

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communicative & integrative biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Arnold De LoofFunctional Genomics and Proteomics Group, Department of Biology, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8788-5301
Abterra Biosciences (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After many years of sometimes heated discussions, the problem regarding the relative importance of two classical dogmas of the Nature (genes and sex-steroid hormones) versus Nurture (education, teaching-learning etc.) debate, is still awaiting a conclusive solution. Males and females differ in only a few (primordial) genes as is well documented by genomic analyses. However, their sex- and gender-specific behavior and physiology is nevertheless profoundly different, even if they grew up in a similar (educational) environment. By extending the "Calcigender-concept", originally formulated in 2015, to the simplistic binary Nature versus Nurture concept, a novel framework showing that the sex-steroid hormone-dependent intracellular Calcium concentration is an important third factor may emerge. Although the principles of animal physiology and evolution strongly stress the fact that Nature is always dominant, Nurture can, to a limited extent, play a mitigating role.

Indexed as

cultural evolutionfeminismgendergender neutralitymasculinismnature versus NurtureSex-steroidssocial psychologytransgender

Identifiers

PMID31143365
PMCPMC6527185
OpenAlexW2922363785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.