Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42410669›Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2026

The male default prevails in biomedical research: sex inclusion in Nature (2025).

Ashlyn Swift-Gallant, Liisa A M Galea, Lindsay S Cahill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ashlyn Swift-GallantDepartment of Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada. aswiftgallant@mun.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7224-2672
Liisa A M GaleaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lindsay S CahillDepartment of Chemistry, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchSex CharacteristicsAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleBiomedical researchEditorial policyMale-default modelNature journalSex as a biological variable (SABV)Sex as a discovery variableSex-disaggregated analysisSex inclusionSex reporting

Identifiers

PMID42410669
PMCPMC13621735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.