ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2025
Inflammaging and the sex-frailty paradox.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidimensional Physiological and Gut Microbiome Profiling Identifies Subtle Physiological Patterns in an Apparently Healthy Aging Indian Cohort: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Unraveling the role of HIF-1 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from older patients with Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe "sex-frailty paradox" is a concept that indicates how women despite being more frail are less susceptible to death than men. The roots of this paradox may lie in the different combination of biological, behavioural, and social factors between the two sexes. The aim of this study is to deepen our understanding of the different biological mechanisms underlying frailty and longevity in men and women, thus shedding further light on the sex-frailty paradox.
methodsWe studied 452 subjects (315 women and 137 men) stratifying them by age (≤ 80, 81-99 and ≥ 100 years) and sex. A 47-item frailty index was calculated. Plasma concentrations of inflammatory markers were analysed by next-generation ELISA.
resultsWomen aged ≤ 80 years were less frail while those aged ≥ 100 years were more frail than their male counterparts. Interestingly, the 81-99-year-old group showed similar frailty degree between females and males. Most of the biomarkers increased with age in both sexes, while being associated differently with frailty, indicating that there are specific biological roots in the two sexes that influence frailty.
conclusionsTrying to delineate the unique molecular profile of older women and men becomes essential for understanding the mechanisms underlying the sex-frailty paradox. Further research on sex-specific determinants is required to enhance our understanding of aging and develop effective strategies to promote health and longevity in both sexes.
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.