Studying both sexes: a guiding principle for biomedicine

Clayton, Janine Austin

doi:10.1096/fj.15-279554

Cited by 277 publications

(229 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 In Ophthalmology there are notable sex differences in many traits and diseases, but very little is known about root causes to enable design and implementation of diagnostic, preventive and treatment strategies. 2 Dry eye disease (DED) is no exception, as numerous epidemiological studies have shown that DED is far more prevalent in women than in men and biological studies have shown that sex has a major influence on the regulation of the ocular surface and adnexa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in clinical characteristics of dry eye disease

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Vehof J, Sillevis Smitt-Kamminga N, Nibourg SA, Hammond CJ, Sex differences in clinical characteristics of dry eye disease, Ocular Surface (2018), doi: 10.1016/ j.jtos.2018.01.001. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Conclusions: This large clinical study has shown that sex has a large influence on the symptomatology of DED, with significantly higher symptom scores and lower correlation between symptoms and signs in women compared to men. These findings are of importance in clinical practice and in conducting research into DED.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in clinical characteristics of dry eye disease

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this article, we offer an approach to thinking about variation in brain structure and function that pulls us outside the dimorphism-difference formulation. We consider the implications of this approach for future research including both basic and clinical inquiry and in the light of the requirement that sex be explicitly included in all research studies by the United States National Institutes of Health [25,26] and of similar policies by Canada and the European Union [27,28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond sex differences: new approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function

Joel

Fausto‐Sterling

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

108

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the study of variation in brain structure and function that might relate to sex and gender, language matters because it frames our research questions and methods. In this article, we offer an approach to thinking about variation in brain structure and function that pulls us outside the sex differences formulation. We argue that the existence of differences between the brains of males and females does not unravel the relations between sex and the brain nor is it sufficient to characterize a population of brains. Such characterization is necessary for studying sex effects on the brain as well as for studying brain structure and function in general. Animal studies show that sex interacts with environmental, developmental and genetic factors to affect the brain. Studies of humans further suggest that human brains are better described as belonging to a single heterogeneous population rather than two distinct populations. We discuss the implications of these observations for studies of brain and behaviour in humans and in laboratory animals. We believe that studying sex effects in context and developing or adopting analytical methods that take into account the heterogeneity of the brain are crucial for the advancement of human health and well-being.

show abstract

“…Reasons put forward for the preferential use of males include increased variability attributable to fluctuating gonadal hormone levels throughout the estrous cycle and sample size implications of planning sexbased analyses. 2,3 Evidence to support these concerns is limited for most experimental settings, however. [3][4][5] Our review of preclinical research published in leading cardiovascular journals over the past 10 years demonstrates that sex bias is prevalent and increasing, contrasting with advances made in clinical research designs and reporting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%