ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2020
No genetic contribution to variation in human offspring sex ratio: a total population study of 4.7 million births.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The decade of double-trouble: live birth and stillbirth sex ratio variation in Finland during the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's attack on Ukraine.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- No Evidence of Genetic Basis to Variation in Human Offspring Sex Ratio.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- Signatures of sex ratio distortion in humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Is sex at birth a biological coin toss? Insights from a longitudinal and GWAS analysis.Science advances · 2025Article
- In search of the genetic variants of human sex ratio at birth: was Fisher wrong about sex ratio evolution?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Sex ratio at birth across 100 years in Sweden and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality - a national register study.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Is it a judgment of representativeness? Re-examining the birth sequence problem.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- Learning to Value Girls: Balanced Infant Sex Ratios at Higher Parental Education in the United States, 1969-2018.Demography · 2022Article
- Observable variations in human sex ratio at birth.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Fisher's principle remains a plausible explanation for human sex ratio evolution. A Comment on: ZietschProceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- When theory cannot explain data, the theory needs rethinking. Invited replies to: Orzack SH, Hardy ICW. 2021, and Lehtonen J. 2021.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Does the lack of heritability of human sex ratios require a rethink of sex ratio theory? No: a Comment on ZietschProceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Are human natal sex ratio differences across the world adaptive? A test of Fisher's principle.Biology letters · 2021Article
- The Coupon Collection Behavior in Human Reproduction.Current biology : CB · 2020Article
- A test of oscillation in the human secondary sex ratio.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ratio of males to females among an individual's offspring at birth (offspring sex ratio) has long been of great interest to evolutionary biologists. The human offspring sex ratio is around 1 : 1 and is understood primarily in terms of Fisher's principle (R. A. Fisher,
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.