ArticleBiology of sex differences2026
Decoding sex and gender effects on health: evidence from a nationwide cohort.
Article 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundValidated tools to assess gender are essential for clinical and population research but remain scarce and unstandardized. Understanding how sociocultural gender interacts with biological sex in shaping disease risk is critical for precision medicine. We aimed to investigate the association of sex and gender with cardiovascular risk factors and common comorbidities, and to refine an existing composite Gender score in a Swiss cohort.
methodsThis multicenter prospective study conducted in three tertiary and one regional hospital included outpatients and inpatients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 2,690; estimation and internal validation sets) and outpatients with periodontitis (n = 337; external validation set). Gender-related variables were acquired via questionnaire. Logistic regression models and propensity score matching were used to assess associations between sex, gender, and the prevalence of cardiometabolic and chronic health conditions.
resultsA total of 3,027 individuals (46.3% women; mean age 45 ± 17 years) were included. The composite Gender Score predicted biological sex with good accuracy (ROC 0.776-0.809). Biological sex was more strongly associated with most cardiometabolic risk factors, stroke, immune disorders, and bone diseases, whereas gender showed limited independent associations. For diabetes, female sex was inversely associated with diabetes prevalence, while a more feminine gender profile was positively associated. These opposing associations persisted after accounting for gender in matched analyses, illustrating that sex and gender may contribute differently to specific metabolic outcomes.
conclusionSociocultural variables can accurately approximate biological sex and are differentially associated with health outcomes. In this cohort, biological sex explained most associations with cardiometabolic and chronic conditions, while gender effects were modest and condition-specific. The divergent associations observed for diabetes highlight that sex and gender are related but distinct constructs that should be considered jointly. Integrating both dimensions may improve future approaches to risk stratification, although these findings require confirmation in prospective and diverse populations.
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.