ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2022
Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Based Models for Studying Sex-Specific Differences in Neurodegenerative Diseases.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex hormones, the gut microbiome, and neurodegenerative diseases: Lifespan perspective.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Extracellular vesicles as biomarkers for traumatic brain injury using a 3D in vitro human brain tissue model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Astrocytes in Primary Familial Brain Calcification (PFBC): Emphasis on the Importance of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Human Astrocyte Models.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Extracellular microRNAs modulate human microglial function through TLR8.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Harshening stem cell research and precision medicine: The states of human pluripotent cells stem cell repository diversity, and racial and sex differences in transcriptomes.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases is steadily increasing worldwide, and epidemiological studies strongly suggest that many of the diseases are sex-biased. It has long been suggested that biological sex differences are crucial for neurodegenerative diseases; however, how biological sex affects disease initiation, progression, and severity is not well-understood. Sex is a critical biological variable that should be taken into account in basic research, and this review aims to highlight the utility of human-induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC)-derived models for studying sex-specific differences in neurodegenerative diseases, with advantages and limitations. In vitro systems utilizing species-specific, renewable, and physiologically relevant cell sources can provide powerful platforms for mechanistic studies, toxicity testings, and drug discovery. Matched healthy, patient-derived, and gene-corrected human iPSCs, from both sexes, can be utilized to generate neuronal and glial cell types affected by specific neurodegenerative diseases to study sex-specific differences in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) human culture systems. Such relatively simple and well-controlled systems can significantly contribute to the elucidation of molecular mechanisms underlying sex-specific differences, which can yield effective, and potentially sex-based strategies, against neurodegenerative diseases.
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.