ReviewAmerican journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council2025
"Precision Medicine" and the Failed Search for Binary Brain Sex Differences to Address Gender Behavioral Health Disparities.
Review in American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Sex versus Gender Role Endorsement Associations With White Matter Microstructure in South African Adults: A Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- The "sex-specific effect:" Evaluating analytical approaches to sex-dependence in the behavioral and brain sciences.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Human brain imaging took off in the 1980s and has since flooded the zone in the analysis of gender differences in behavior and mental health. Couched in the aims of "precision medicine," the vast majority of this research has taken a binary approach, dividing participants according to the M/F box at intake and asserting that the sex differences found in neuroimaging will lead to important advances for treating neuropsychiatric disorders. However, the actual findings from this 40-year project have not lived up to its promise, in part because of the over-binarization of sex and general ignorance of gender as a complex variable influencing human behavior and brain function. This paper reviews the history of failed claims about male-female brain difference in the modern era, illuminates the deep-pocketed incentives driving such research, and examines the limitations of this binary approach for understanding gender-related behavior and health disparities. It then considers more recent efforts to "break the binary" by using measures of "gender" in addition to "sex" as an independent variable in brain imaging studies. Given the multidimensional nature of gender-as identity, expression, roles and relations-this is challenging to implement, with initial efforts producing little of substance. Better approaches to addressing male-female disparities in brain health will require focusing on specific behaviors (e.g., anxiety, risk-taking, verbal memory, spatial navigation) and specific components of sex and gender (e.g., body size, hormone levels, gene expression, caregiver role, financial independence, discrimination) when seeking brain-behavior correlates in a diverse population.
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.