ReviewFrontiers in physiology2023
Sex matters: the frequently overlooked importance of considering sex in computational models.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Advancing women's health through equity in quantitative sciences: promoting sex- and gender-based modeling in clinical trials and real-world studies.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Navigating the paradigm shift of sex inclusive preclinical research and lessons learnt.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Sex as a biological variable for cardiovascular physiology.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024Review
- Guidelines on the use of sex and gender in cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024Review
- Study on the relationship between body mass index and blood pressure indices in children aged 7-17 during COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalised medicine and the development of a virtual human or a digital twin comprises visions of the future of medicine. To realise these innovations, an understanding of the biology and physiology of all people are required if we wish to apply these technologies at a population level. Sex differences in health and biology is one aspect that has frequently been overlooked, with young white males being seen as the "average" human being. This has not been helped by the lack of inclusion of female cells and animals in biomedical research and preclinical studies or the historic exclusion, and still low in proportion, of women in clinical trials. However, there are many known differences in health between the sexes across all scales of biology which can manifest in differences in susceptibility to diseases, symptoms in a given disease, and outcomes to a given treatment. Neglecting these important differences in the development of any health technologies could lead to adverse outcomes for both males and females. Here we highlight just some of the sex differences in the cardio-respiratory systems with the goal of raising awareness that these differences exist. We discuss modelling studies that have considered sex differences and touch on how and when to create sex-specific models. Scientific studies should ensure sex differences are included right from the study planning phase and results reported using sex as a biological variable. Computational models must have sex-specific versions to ensure a movement towards personalised medicine is realised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.