Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38570790›Full record

ReviewBiology of sex differences2024

Training in the implementation of sex and gender research policies: an evaluation of publicly available online courses.

Annika Gompers, Madeline T Olivier, Donna L Maney

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Claims of sex-dependent effects in the behavioral and brain sciences are infrequently supported by valid statistical comparisons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. "Precision Medicine" and the Failed Search for Binary Brain Sex Differences to Address Gender Behavioral Health Disparities.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
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

3 authors.

Annika GompersRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Madeline T OlivierDepartment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Donna L ManeyDepartment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. dmaney@emory.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1006-2358

Funding

Neuro HPA Project 1U54AG062334 · NIA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Ighovwerha Ofotokun · 2018 to 2026
$12.2M
SCISIPBIO: Maximizing rigor and reproducibility when considering Sex as a Biological Variable in researchR01GM152543 · NIGMS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI DONNA L MANEY, Colby Vorland · 2023 to 2026
$734k
NIA NIH HHS U54 AG062334NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM152543
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently implemented research policies requiring the inclusion of females and males have created an urgent need for effective training in how to account for sex, and in some cases gender, in biomedical studies.

methodsHere, we evaluated three sets of publicly available online training materials on this topic: (1) Integrating Sex & Gender in Health Research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (2) Sex as a Biological Variable: A Primer from the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH); and (3) The Sex and Gender Dimension in Biomedical Research, developed as part of "Leading Innovative measures to reach gender Balance in Research Activities" (LIBRA) from the European Commission. We reviewed each course with respect to their coverage of (1) What is required by the policy; (2) Rationale for the policy; (3) Handling of the concepts "sex" and "gender;" (4) Research design and analysis; and (5) Interpreting and reporting data.

resultsAll three courses discussed the importance of including males and females to better generalize results, discover potential sex differences, and tailor treatments to men and women. The entangled nature of sex and gender, operationalization of sex, and potential downsides of focusing on sex more than other sources of variation were minimally discussed. Notably, all three courses explicitly endorsed invalid analytical approaches that produce bias toward false positive discoveries of difference.

conclusionsOur analysis suggests a need for revised or new training materials that incorporate four major topics: precise operationalization of sex, potential risks of over-emphasis on sex as a category, recognition of gender and sex as complex and entangled, and rigorous study design and data analysis.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCanadaFemaleHumansMalePolicySex CharacteristicsSex FactorsGender differencesSABVSex differencesSGBA

Identifiers

PMID38570790
PMCPMC10988906

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.