ReviewFrontiers in aging neuroscience2024
A case for seeking sex-specific treatments in Alzheimer's disease.
Review in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-specific regulation of angiogenin in Alzheimer's disease.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Treatment Effects of Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Alzheimer's Disease: a Causal Machine Learning Approach.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Sex and gender-related differences in neurological diseases: current challenges and recommendations for clinical practice.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Sex-Specific Prediction Models of Alzheimer's Disease: A Gene Expression Analysis.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Update on sex-specific microglia contribution to early synaptic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Review
- Precise diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease based on sex-specific gray matter characteristics.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Sex differences in the clinical manifestation of autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- The higher benefit of lecanemab in males compared to females in CLARITY AD is probably due to a real sex effect.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Serum metabolome profiling in patients with mild cognitive impairment reveals sex differences in lipid metabolism.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Article
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
There is no satisfactory explanation for the sex-related differences in the incidence of many diseases and this is also true of Alzheimer's disease (AD), where females have a higher lifetime risk of developing the disease and make up about two thirds of the AD patient population. The importance of understanding the cause(s) that account for this disproportionate distribution cannot be overestimated, and is likely to be a significant factor in the search for therapeutic strategies that will combat the disease and, furthermore, potentially point to a sex-targeted approach to treatment. This review considers the literature in the context of what is known about the impact of sex on processes targeted by drugs that are in clinical trial for AD, and existing knowledge on differing responses of males and females to these drugs. Current knowledge strongly supports the view that trials should make assessing sex-related difference in responses a priority with a focus on exploring the sex-stratified treatments.
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.