ArticleHealth affairs (Project Hope)2026
The Extent Of Gender/Sex Variables Included In Clinical Algorithms Across Medical Specialties.
Article in Health affairs (Project Hope), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gender/sex variables are often included in clinical algorithms, typically without articulating which aspects of gender or sex-linked biologies are hypothesized to contribute to the tools' output. To date, there exists little systematic evaluation of how gender/sex inputs are used in clinical algorithms. We analyzed all clinical algorithms available in the online database MDCalc, assessing whether and how they include gender/sex inputs. For tools with gender/sex inputs, we evaluated the consequences of, justification for, and timeline of including such inputs. Of 602 tools reviewed, 112 (18.6 percent) included gender/sex. These inputs were used to adjust the algorithmic outcome by directly allocating points according to a change in the gender/sex variable or to normalize the outcome by using gender/sex to interpret other tool inputs. Fewer than half of tools included text justifying the inclusion of gender/sex in initial tool development, and only five tools had been updated since their initial development. Systematic reconsideration and regular reevaluation of gender/sex inputs in clinical algorithms may be needed to determine which inputs, if any, are warranted to support clinicians in providing better care for patients.
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.