ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Variability in variability: does variation in morphological and physiological traits differ between men and women?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. 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.
- A visualization tool for individual gene expression profiles among males and females in GTEx tissues.Biology of sex differences · 2025Article
- Zoographics in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: Increasing inclusion of female animals.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2024Article
- Does greater variation reside in the larger sex?Biology letters · 2024Article
- A response to "Realism and robustness require increased sample size when studying both sexes".PLoS biology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many researchers presume greater variability between female participants than between males due to the menstrual cycle. This view has encouraged a sex bias in health and medical research, resulting in considerable knowledge gaps with important clinical implications. Yet in another field-evolutionary biology-the received wisdom is the reverse: that men are more variable, possibly due to male heterogamety. To test these competing hypotheses, we compared variance between the sexes for 50 morphological and physiological traits, analysing data from the NHANES database. Nearly half the traits did not exhibit sexual dimorphism in variation, while 18 exhibited greater female variation (GFV), indicating GFV does not dominate human characteristics. Only eight traits exhibited greater male variation (GMV), indicating GMV also does not dominate, and in turn offering scant support for the heterogamety hypothesis. When our analysis was filtered to include only women with regular menstrual cycles (and men of equivalent age), the number of traits with GFV and GMV were low and not statistically different, suggesting that the menstrual cycle does not typically explain GFV when it occurs. In practical terms, health and medical researchers should no longer simply assume that female participants will induce additional variation in the traits of interest.
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.