Problems and Progress regarding Sex Bias and Omission in Neuroscience Research

Will, Tyler; Proaño, Stephanie B.; Thomas, Anly M.; Kunz, Lindsey M.; Thompson, Kelly C; Ginnari, Laura A.; Jones, Clay H.; Lucas, Sarah-Catherine; Reavis, Elizabeth M.; Dorris, David M.; Meitzen, John

doi:10.1523/eneuro.0278-17.2017

Cited by 135 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even when subject sex is reported, it is sometimes not evident until late in the results, or may require accessing online supplementary material. Subsequent analysis of the neuroscience literature suggests that omission of subject sex has decreased in recent years, but the number of male-only rodent studies has increased, and analysis by subject sex in mixed-sex studies remains infrequent[15]. …”

Section: How Bad Is the Status Quo?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusion of females does not increase variability in rodent research studies

Beery

2018

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

281

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The underrepresentation of female subjects in animal research has gained attention in recent years, and new NIH guidelines aim to address this problem early, at the grant proposal stage. Many researchers believe that use of females will hamper research because of the need for increased sample sizes, and increased costs. Here I review empirical research across multiple rodent species and traits that demonstrates that females are not more variable than males, and that for most traits, female estrous cyclicity need not be considered. I present statistical simulations illustrating how factorial designs can reduce the need for additional research subjects, and discuss cultural issues around the inclusion of male and female subjects in research.

show abstract

Section: How Bad Is the Status Quo?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusion of females does not increase variability in rodent research studies

Beery

2018

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

281

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Females have been systematically understudied in neuroscience and biomedical research . Studying populations that include both males and females ensures that the results may generalize to other similarly diverse populations Although there is ample evidence of sex differences in drug seeking and taking, the genetic mechanisms that drive these differences remain understudied.…”

Section: Inclusion Of Both Sexes In Rodent Genetic Studies Of Addictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospects for finding the mechanisms of sex differences in addiction with human and model organism genetic analysis

Datta

Schoenrock

Bubier

et al. 2020

Genes Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite substantial evidence for sex differences in addiction epidemiology, addiction‐relevant behaviors and associated neurobiological phenomena, the mechanisms and implications of these differences remain unknown. Genetic analysis in model organism is a potentially powerful and effective means of discovering the mechanisms that underlie sex differences in addiction. Human genetic studies are beginning to show precise risk variants that influence the mechanisms of addiction but typically lack sufficient power or neurobiological mechanistic access, particularly for the discovery of the mechanisms that underlie sex differences. Our thesis in this review is that genetic variation in model organisms are a promising approach that can complement these investigations to show the biological mechanisms that underlie sex differences in addiction.

show abstract

“…An extensive review of literature analyzing changes in brain structure via imaging in the course of substance abuse disorders noted significantly less female participation as late as 2016, with nearly three‐fourths of studies without sex‐based analysis . A review of neuroscience animal research highlighted an uptrend in use of male animals only, with a persistent lack of sex‐based statistical analysis in studies utilizing both animals . Among surgical disciplines, general and orthopedic surgery have demonstrated substantial sex bias and underreporting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex bias: Is it pervasive in otolaryngology clinical research?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis Recent initiatives highlight substantial sex bias in biomedical research. The objective was to determine whether sex bias is present in otolaryngology and whether sex is appropriately analyzed as an independent variable in otolaryngology clinical research. Study Design Literature review. Methods We systematically reviewed all 2016 articles in three major otolaryngology journals: The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Extracted data included study origin, location, subspecialty, number/sex of subjects, ≥50% sex matching (SM≥50), and sex‐based statistical analysis. Results Six hundred of 1,209 articles comprising original clinical research were reviewed including 8,997,345,495 subjects (males: 3,898,559,264 [43.3%]; females: 5,095,592,583 [56.6%]; and unknown: 3,193,648 [0.04%]). There were 533/600 (88.8%) studies that included both sexes, eight (1.3%) included females only, five (0.8%) included males only, and 56 (9.3%) did not document participant sex. Only 280 studies (46.7%) analyzed data by sex, and 330 studies (60.7%) had SM≥50. Sex‐based statistical analysis and SM≥50 were similar in domestic and international studies (48.7% vs. 42.8% and 60.9% vs. 62%, respectively). Database studies performed sex‐based statistical analysis more frequently than single and multi‐institutional studies (79.1% vs. 40.4% and 43.4%, P < .00001). Analysis by sex was more frequently performed in head and neck surgery (53.6%) and pediatric otolaryngology (51.3%), whereas SM≥50 was highest in pediatric otolaryngology (86.8%) and otology (82.4%). Conclusions Sex bias exists in the clinical otolaryngology literature, with less than half the studies analyzing sex. Acknowledging the intertwinement of sex with disease pathophysiology and outcomes is important. Eliminating sex bias in research and clinical care should become a major focus for otolaryngologists. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:858–864, 2019

show abstract

Problems and Progress regarding Sex Bias and Omission in Neuroscience Research

Abstract: Visual Abstract

Cited by 135 publications

References 52 publications

Inclusion of females does not increase variability in rodent research studies

Inclusion of females does not increase variability in rodent research studies

Prospects for finding the mechanisms of sex differences in addiction with human and model organism genetic analysis

Sex bias: Is it pervasive in otolaryngology clinical research?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About