ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Sex Differences in the role of Additive Genetic Variants in Autism: A Systematic Review.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Autism shows a male-biased diagnostic sex ratio. Given the heritability of autism, genetic factors likely contribute to this ratio. This study systematically reviews sex differences in additive common genetic effects related to autism and autistic traits. Methods: Original research was collected from PubMed, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo and Scopus (2008 - July 2025) following PRISMA guidelines. Genome wide association studies (GWASs) on autism, and related downstream analyses, including polygenic scores (PGS), Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) heritability, and genetic correlations were included when sex-stratified results were reported. Risk of bias was assessed, followed by a best-evidence synthesis. Results: Of 6,053 records screened, 21 studies were eligible. In clinical populations, results on mean PGS differences were inconclusive. In subgroups without intellectual disability, strong evidence indicated higher mean PGS in females. In general population samples, weak evidence supported this pattern. PGS associations with autistic traits showed inconsistent results, although stronger associations were reported for sensory sensitivity in males with weak evidence. SNP heritability findings were inconclusive. Genetic correlations between the sexes were significantly different from 1 ( Discussion: Findings suggest an axis of heterogeneity around intellectual disability. Inconsistent findings largely resulted in inconclusive evidence. Results highlight a lack of sex-stratified reporting and were limited by sample makeup such as male- and European ancestry dominated cohorts. Future sex-balanced and stratified GWAS and downstream analyses with complete reporting of female and male data are needed to clarify potential genetic sex differences in autism.
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.