ArticleBiology letters2020
Male survival advantage on the Baja California peninsula.
Article in Biology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Effect of Sex on Mortality Risks in Medieval Ireland.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Article
- Sex bias in mortality risk changes over the lifespan of bottlenose dolphins.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Adult sex ratios: causes of variation and implications for animal and human societies.Communications biology · 2022Review
- Development of a graphical resilience framework to understand a coupled human-natural system in a remote arid highland of Baja California Sur.Sustainability science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A consistent finding from contemporary Western societies is that women outlive men. However, what is unclear is whether sex differences in survival are constant across varying socio-ecological conditions. We test the universality of the female survival advantage with mortality data from a nineteenth century population in the Baja California peninsula of Mexico. When examined simply, we find evidence for a male-biased survival advantage. However, results from Cox regression clearly show the importance of age intervals for variable survival patterns by sex. Our key findings are that males: (i) experience significantly lower mortality risk than females during the ages 15-30 (RR = 0.69), (ii) are at a significantly increased risk of dying in the 61+ category (RR = 1.30) and (iii) do not experience significantly different mortality risk at any other age interval (0-14, 31-45, 46-60). We interpret our results to stem from differing intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for sex-biased mortality across age intervals, highlighting the relevance of a lifecourse approach to the study of survival advantage. Ultimately, our results make clear the need to more broadly consider variability in mortality risk factors across time and place to allow for a clearer understanding of human survival differences.
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.