ReviewBiology of sex differences2026
Gender "in the wild": toward a person-specific behavioral neuroendocrinology.
Review in Biology of sex differences, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sex- and gender-related contributions to behavior "in the wild", as observed in humans in the natural context of their daily lives, can vary strikingly across individuals and be highly enmeshed - so much so that it is impossible to determine whether an average difference between women and men, for instance, reflects biological or sociocultural factors, respectively. Indeed, empirical insights may not just be limited, but may even be distorted, if study designs and data analyses continue to place unique people in ill-assumed homogenous groups for mean-based calculations. Findings may ultimately generalize to no one. An idiographic, or personalized, approach, however, reveals the intricate ways in which sex-related characteristics, such as gonadal hormones, and gender-related experiences combine to matter for behavior. This approach often requires novel data, that is, many repeated observations from the same people on the same variables, and time series analyses. The goal of this article is to briefly review perspectives on sex and gender in research, and then to illustrate how sex- and gender-related factors can be studied together in unique individuals using an idiographic approach. Specifically, person-specific analyses of data from select participants in three different intensive longitudinal studies with 75 or 100 assessment days will showcase unique relations between sex-related neuroendocrinology (i.e., menopause, oral contraceptive use, and puberty) and gender-related self-concepts (i.e., perceptions of masculinity and femininity), or demonstrate links with cognition or mental health. These illustrations will highlight the importance of leveraging methodological innovation to study the individualization of sex and gender, and the necessity of decreasing reliance on sex- and gender-linked assumptions of homogeneity in human neuroendocrine research.
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.