ArticleBiology of sex differences2026
The male default prevails in biomedical research: sex inclusion in Nature (2025).
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite longstanding recognition of sex as a biological variable, its integration into biomedical research remains inconsistent. Numerous publishers have introduced policies to improve reporting and inclusion of sex and gender, including Nature, which requires authors to complete a Life Science Reporting Summary documenting sex inclusion. Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of these policies by examining sex inclusion and reporting practices in all original research articles involving humans, vertebrates, or cell lines published in Nature in 2025 (N = 513). Nearly two-thirds of articles included both sexes (62.7%); however, inclusion was often nominal. Of these articles reporting inclusion of both sexes, 33% did not maintain inclusion across experiments, used markedly unbalanced sex ratios (≥ 2:1), or alternated between male- and female-only experiments. Another 45.5% of these articles reporting inclusion of both sexes did not report sample size by sex, so it cannot be ascertained whether sex inclusion was maintained across experiments or balanced by sex. Single-sex studies accounted for approximately one-fifth of articles. While male-only and female-only studies occurred at similar overall rates, male-only studies were more than four times more likely to address conditions affecting both sexes while female-only studies were more likely to address sex-specific conditions (e.g., ovarian cancer). Notably, the policies aimed at improving reporting and inclusion also did not increase analysis by sex; only 7% of articles explicitly analyzed sex as a discovery variable for at least some analyses. These findings suggest that transparency-focused reporting summaries alone are insufficient to ensure sex inclusion and/or meaningful analytical integration of sex (i.e., direct comparison of sexes, rather than using sex as a covariate). As a leading biomedical journal, Nature plays a central role in shaping research norms; without stronger editorial expectations, reporting requirements risk reinforcing male-default assumptions rather than advancing rigor and generalizability.
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.