ArticleFrontiers in physiology2022
Sex comparisons in physiological and cognitive performance during hypoxic challenge.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a competency framework for airport emergency medical personnel: a Delphi and analytic hierarchy process study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Microbiota-gut-brain axis imbalance: a promising therapeutic target for preserving brain health in high-altitude environment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Effect of intermittent normobaric hypoxia on executive functions assessed with different cognitive tests in healthy young subjects.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Cognitive Impairment Mechanisms in High-Altitude Exposure: Proteomic and Metabolomic Insights.Journal of proteome research · 2024Article
- Acute physiological responses and muscle recovery in females: a randomised controlled trial of muscle damaging exercise in hypoxia.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The effect of breathing hypoxic gas (15% FIOPhysiological reports · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the tactical aviation community, human performance research lags in considering potential psychophysiological differences between male and female aviators due to little inclusion of females during the design and development of aircraft systems. A poor understanding of how male and female aviators differ with respect to human performance results in unknown potential sex differences on aeromedically relevant environmental stressors, perchance leading to suboptimal performance, safety, and health guidelines. For example, previous hypoxia studies have excluded female participants or lacked a sizeable sample to examine sex comparisons. As such, progress toward sensor development and improving hypoxia familiarization training are stunted due to limited knowledge of how individual differences, including sex, may or may not underlie hypoxia symptoms and performance impairment. Investigating sex differences bridges the gap between aerospace medicine and operational health, and addressing hypoxia is one of many facets yet to be studied. In the current study, we retrospectively examined N = 6 hypoxia studies with male-female participant samples (total, N = 189; male,
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.