Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41153015›Full record

ReviewBiology of sex differences2025

Three maxims for countering sex essentialism in scientific research.

Marion Boulicault, Annika Gompers, Lauren Aalami, Ann Caroline Danielsen, Emily C Dore, Patricia Homan, Katharine M N Lee, Miriam Miyagi, Hannah Niederriter, Atlas Sanogo and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biology of sex differences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The Double Historicity of Sex and Gender.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Marion BoulicaultPhilosophy Department, University of Edinburgh, 50 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9LH, UK. marion.boulicault@ed.ac.uk.
Annika GompersEmory University Rollins School of Public Health, 201 Dowman Dr, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Lauren AalamiStanford University School of Medicine, 291 Campus Drive Li Ka Shing Building, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Ann Caroline DanielsenDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Emily C DoreDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Patricia HomanDepartment of Sociology, Florida State University, 222 S Copeland St, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA.
Katharine M N LeeDepartment of Anthropology, Tulane University, 6823 St Charles Ave, New Orleans, LA, 70118, USA.
Miriam MiyagiCenter for Computational Molecular Biology, Brown University, 70 Brown St., Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Hannah NiederriterCommittee on Degrees in the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, Harvard University, Boylston Hall, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.
Atlas SanogoCommittee on Degrees in the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, Harvard University, Boylston Hall, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.
Maayan SudaiFaculty of Law, University of Haifa, Abba Khoushy Ave 199, 3498838, Haifa, Israel.
Alex ThiniusDepartment of Linguistics and Literature, Universiteit Van Amsterdam, 1012 WP, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Sarah S RichardsonCommittee on Degrees in the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, Harvard University, Boylston Hall, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation #2305910Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 79892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To explain observed disparities in health outcomes between men and women, sex essentialist approaches assign causal primacy to sex-related biology. In this essay, we present three case studies to illustrate how sex essentialism can distort human biomedical research and distill three maxims for countering this distortion: (1) engage in responsible citation practices; (2) generate and weigh alternative hypotheses for apparent observations of sex differences; (3) take care in constructing the appropriate denominator when making sex comparisons. We offer these maxims as broadly applicable standards of evidence to guide biomedical research that includes analysis of potential sex differences, as well as to support Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), funders, publishers, and peer reviewers in evaluating sex difference findings. If widely applied, these maxims would substantially improve the rigor, precision, and utility of the knowledge base of sex and gender science.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchSex CharacteristicsSexismFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID41153015
PMCPMC12560604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.