Evidence mapPaperPMID 38409052Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2024

Consideration of sex as a biological variable in diabetes research across twenty years.

Celena M Cherian, Hayley R Reeves, Duneesha De Silva, Serena Tsao, Katie E Marshall, Elizabeth J Rideout

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sex differences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Celena M Cherian *Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Hayley R Reeves *Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Duneesha De Silva *Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Serena Tsao *Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Katie E MarshallDepartment of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Elizabeth J RideoutDepartment of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. elizabeth.rideout@ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0012-2828
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

CIHR GS4-171365
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSex differences exist in the risk of developing type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and in the risk of developing diabetes-associated complications. Sex differences in glucose homeostasis, islet and β cell biology, and peripheral insulin sensitivity have also been reported. Yet, we lack detailed information on the mechanisms underlying these differences, preventing the development of sex-informed therapeutic strategies for persons living with diabetes. To chart a path toward greater inclusion of biological sex as a variable in diabetes research, we first need a detailed assessment of common practices in the field.

methodsWe developed a scoring system to evaluate the inclusion of biological sex in manuscripts published in Diabetes, a journal published by the American Diabetes Association. We chose Diabetes as this journal focuses solely on diabetes and diabetes-related research, and includes manuscripts that use both clinical and biomedical approaches. We scored papers published across 3 years within a 20-year period (1999, 2009, 2019), a timeframe that spans the introduction of funding agency and journal policies designed to improve the consideration of biological sex as a variable.

resultsOur analysis showed fewer than 15% of papers used sex-based analysis in even one figure across all study years, a trend that was reproduced across journal-defined categories of diabetes research (e.g., islet studies, signal transduction). Single-sex studies accounted for approximately 40% of all manuscripts, of which > 87% used male subjects only. While we observed a modest increase in the overall inclusion of sex as a biological variable during our study period, our data highlight significant opportunities for improvement in diabetes research practices. We also present data supporting a positive role for journal policies in promoting better consideration of biological sex in diabetes research.

conclusionsOur analysis provides significant insight into common practices in diabetes research related to the consideration of biological sex as a variable. Based on our analysis we recommend ways that diabetes researchers can improve inclusion of biological sex as a variable. In the long term, improved practices will reveal sex-specific mechanisms underlying diabetes risk and complications, generating knowledge to enable the development of sex-informed prevention and treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Insulin ResistanceFemaleHumansMaleBiological sexDiabetesSex-based analysisSex difference

Identifiers

PMID38409052
PMCPMC10895746
OpenAlexW4392165832

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.