ReviewPhysiological research2020
Various aspects of sex and gender bias in biomedical research.
Review in Physiological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sex differences in pharmacological interventions and their effects on lifespan and healthspan outcomes: a systematic review.Frontiers in aging · 2023Pooled it
- On the importance of including both sexes in animal studies - insights from home-cage monitoring.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Equity and Respect in Maternal and Infant Healthcare-A Report From the 2025 Venice Forum.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Review
- XYomics: detecting sex-dependent molecular mechanisms in omics data.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Large-scale automated detection reveals pervasive sex imbalance in biomedical research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in cancer diagnosis and therapy using sex and gender as precision biomarkers.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Sex and Gender in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Does It Matter?Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating sex as a biological variable in in vitro blood-brain barrier models: insights from primary mouse brain endothelial cells.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Science policies and practice of including and excluding women from clinical studies: focus on cardiovascular research.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Identification of risk factors for renal progression in adults with IgAV: a retrospective cohort study of a single center in northwest China.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Sex differences in macro- and microvascular reactivity - a systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Sex-dependent relationships between PFAS and placental transcriptomics identified by weighted gene co-expression analysis.Environmental research · 2025Article
- Sex and gender differences in cancer pathogenesis and pharmacology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Review
- Biological Sex Is Under-Reported in Cartilage-Related Preclinical Research: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.JOR spine · 2025Article
- Volumetric Changes in Cerebellar Transverse Zones: Age and Sex Effects in Health and Neurological Disorders.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Gender-based variations in surgical management of colorectal liver metastases: comprehensive analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Dietary caloric input and tumor growth accelerate senescence and modulate liver and adipose tissue crosstalk.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Molecular Findings Before Vision Loss in the Streptozotocin-Induced Rat Model of Diabetic Retinopathy.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- The role of leadership in empowering women in medicine.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Zoographics in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: Increasing inclusion of female animals.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main role of research in medicine is to provide relevant knowledge which, after successful translation to clinical practice, improves the quality of healthcare. The sex bias which is still present in the majority of research disciplines prefers male subjects despite legislation changes in the US grant agencies and European research programme Horizon 2020. Male subjects (cells, animals) still dominate in preclinical research and it has detrimental consequences for women's health and the quality of science. Opposite bias exists for data obtained mainly in animal models utilizing female subjects (e.g. research in multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis) with skewed outcomes for men affected by these diseases. Either way, scientists are producing results which compromise half of the population. Assumptions that females as cohorts are more variable and another assumption that the oestrous cycle should be tracked in case the females are enrolled in preclinical studies were proven wrong. Variability of male versus female cohorts are comparable and do not only stem from hormonal levels. The widespread prevalence of sex differences in human diseases ultimately requires detailed experiments performed on both sexes, unless the studies are specifically addressing reproduction or sex-related behaviors.
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.