ReviewHandbook of experimental pharmacology2023
Biological and Clinical Implications of Sex-Specific Differences in Alzheimer's Disease.
Review in Handbook of experimental pharmacology, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Six promising drug repurposing candidates for Alzheimer's disease and their sex-specific mechanisms and efficacy.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Impaired Oxidative Stress Markers and Activities of Matrix Metalloproteinases in Plasma of Patients with Alzheimer's Disease, Emphasizing Sex andInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Decoding subphenotypes in electronic medical records within late-onset Alzheimer's disease reveals heterogeneity and sex-specific differences.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Focus on Cognitive Function and Mood.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Retinal manifestations and their diagnostic significance in Alzheimer's disease.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reportsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mounting evidence indicates that the female sex is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia worldwide. Decades of research suggest that sex-specific differences in genetics, environmental factors, hormones, comorbidities, and brain structure and function may contribute to AD development. However, although significant progress has been made in uncovering specific genetic factors and biological pathways, the precise mechanisms underlying sex-biased differences are not fully characterized. Here, we review several lines of evidence, including epidemiological, clinical, and molecular studies addressing sex differences in AD. In addition, we discuss the challenges and future directions in advancing personalized treatments for AD.
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.