Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40364728›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council2025

Limitations of the Male/Female Binary for Studying the Influences of Sex- and Gender-Related Factors on Health.

Stacey A Ritz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stacey A RitzDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0009-0008-6192-182X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Momentum has been building for several decades around the value of incorporating sex and gender considerations in biomedical, clinical, and health research more broadly. In that period, there has been a proliferation of guidelines, policies, definitions, methods, and conceptual frameworks for doing so, which is both constructive and challenging: the diversity of concepts and methods generates knowledge that highlights different aspects of the phenomena under study, but at the same time, it can create inconsistency and fragmentation around the operationalization and interpretation of research attending to sex and gender considerations in health. A male-female binary approach to examining how sex and gender influence health has predominated in many domains, and although this has value for helping to identify health disparities related to sex and gender, there are also some important limitations of an uncritical overreliance on male-female comparisons; three case studies from the biomedical literature are used to help illustrate some of these limitations. Ultimately, there is no single correct approach to addressing sex and gender in health research. I contend that the most crucial element is that researchers need to bring careful and critical attention to the incorporation of sex and gender considerations in ways that are appropriate for their research context and understand and articulate the limitations of their chosen approaches.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchFemaleGender IdentityHumansMaleSex Factorsbiomedical researchgenderhealthsex

Identifiers

PMID40364728
PMCPMC12076106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.