ArticleBMC public health2026
Origin of sexual dimorphism in osteoarthritis risk: the impact of pregnancy and parental care.
Article in BMC public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA higher osteoarthritis (OA) risk in females is well-documented, but the causes of this sexual dimorphism remain unclear. This study explores whether this disparity arises from sex differences in development or the sex difference in total reproductive costs of gestation and parental care.
methodWe tested four hypotheses on the effects of gestation and parental care on OA risk using data from the German Aging Survey (DEAS), controlling for age, education, and comorbidities, as appropriate. We analyzed 2,328 men and 2,359 women with children, and 313 men and 319 women without children. We compared OA risk (1) between childless men and women, (2 and 3) within each sex based on parental status, and (4) by the number of children, stratified by sex. We used logistic regression for each test and calculated adjusted 95% confidence intervals and p-values. First test the effect of sex difference in risk development, while the second and third determine the effect of total reproductive costs in each sex, and the fourth examines the dose-dependent effect of reproductive cost in OA risk development.
resultsNo significant difference in OA risk was found between childless men and women (37% and 44%, respectively, CI = -0.035 to 0.602, p = 0.081). However, women with children had a significantly higher OA risk than childless women (51%, and 44%, respectively, CI = 0.004 to 0.483, p = 0.047). Differences in risk between men with and without children were insignificant ( 43%, and 37%, respectively, CI = -0.069 to 0.432, p = 0.156). OA risk increased significantly with the number of children in women (0.10, CI = 0.03 to 0.179, p = 0.006,) but not in men (0.02, CI = -0.058 to 0.091, p = 0.660,) as the previous experiment also suggests.
conclusionSexual dimorphism in OA risk appears to be driven by the reproductive costs of gestation and parental care. Our findings highlight the need for finer stratification based on reproductive status to better understand sex differences in disease risks.
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.