2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100550
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why “sex as a biological variable” conflicts with precision medicine initiatives

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(16 reference statements)
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We chose to analyze traits with SNP heritabilities over 7.5% in the combined sample, to have higher statistical power. While there is not a strict one-to-one relationship between sex chromosome karyotype and biological sex, we label XX individuals as females and XY individuals as males, and view these labels as capturing group differences in distributions of contexts for autosomal effects, rather than as a dichotomy 14,17,32 . Throughout, we analyze GWAS on the raw measurement units as provided by UKB.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We chose to analyze traits with SNP heritabilities over 7.5% in the combined sample, to have higher statistical power. While there is not a strict one-to-one relationship between sex chromosome karyotype and biological sex, we label XX individuals as females and XY individuals as males, and view these labels as capturing group differences in distributions of contexts for autosomal effects, rather than as a dichotomy 14,17,32 . Throughout, we analyze GWAS on the raw measurement units as provided by UKB.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some researchers still focus on males; others use mixed male and female groups that are typically underpowered to detect sex differences; a smaller percentage of researchers actually run studies that are designed to test the effect of sex [29,30]. This varied response and its outcomes also raised concerns that sex differences are now misreported and misinterpreted [32], and that this practice can hurt the precision medicine initiative in the long-run [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple researchers have indicated that sex is a complex, multi-layered variable that should be used as a proxy rather than a variable that explains sex-based variation [35,44]. We were warned that male and female populations are largely overlapping in both animal [35] and clinical [45] research and that over-interpreting sex differences can bring us further from truth both in experimental research and in medicine [33,35], and it hurts transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals [31]. With our population graphs, we show that incorporating the estrous cycle stage, an exemplary sex-specific variable, increases our resolution so we can separate different populations and better interpret our data.…”
Section: The Estrous Cycle Tracking Is a Stressor And May Represent A...mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The NIH established an expectation for NIH-supported research to include investigations of sex as a biological variable in 2016 (Clayton & Collins, 2014; Legato et al, 2016; Rich-Edwards et al, 2018; Woitowich et al, 2020). While there has been some debate about the optimal approach to implement this requirement, there appears to be agreement that sex-related variables may emerge as relevant within the context of a specific research program (DiMarco et al, 2022). Although the majority of individuals may be assigned to one of two categories for some traits (e.g., karyotype sex), there are many biological traits (e.g., height) that represent continuous variables with considerable overlap between sexes (DiMarco et al, 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%