ReviewACS biomaterials science & engineering2025
The Importance of Sex-Based Comparisons in Preclinical Nanomedicine and Regenerative Chronic Wound Therapies.
Review in ACS biomaterials science & engineering, 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.
- Long-term remodeling of compliance matched tissue engineered vascular grafts is sex specific.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Article
- Nanomedicine for Cardiac Repair in Heart Failure: From Targeted Delivery to Regenerative Modulation.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- A minimally invasive, scalable and reproducible neonatal rat model of severe focal brain injury.Brain communications · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is increasingly recognized that immune responses, plasma proteomes, and various biosystem reactions to advanced therapeutics, such as nanomedicine and regenerative medicine, differ by gender. While sex is a crucial factor influencing the safety and efficacy of these therapies, there is a notable lack of robust consideration of sex differences in both preclinical and clinical studies. This Perspective examines the current literature on the role of sex in nanomedicine and biomaterial-based products for preclinical chronic wound healing. While there is a growing trend of using both male and female animal models, most studies lack direct, side-by-side comparisons of sex-specific outcomes. Specifically, 77.8% of nanomedicine and 85.3% of biomaterial studies exclusively employed either male or female animals. Only 7.4% of nanomedicine and 2.1% of biomaterials publications included both sexes; however, apart from two studies, most did not perform direct sex-based comparisons. Instead, they often assigned different sexes to separate species, wound types, or experimental conditions (e.g., noninfected versus infected wounds). To deepen our understanding of sex differences in advanced therapeutics, future research should focus on direct, side-by-side comparisons of male and female
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.