ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
The "sex-specific effect:" Evaluating analytical approaches to sex-dependence in the behavioral and brain sciences.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detecting a sex difference in response to a treatment or intervention, often reported as a "sex-specific effect," requires statistical comparison of the response across sex. Here, we investigated analytical approaches used to test for such effects in the behavioral and brain sciences. Of 200 recent articles containing terms such as 'sex-specific' or 'gender-dependent' in their titles, only 24% presented appropriate evidence supporting the claim: the effect was compared statistically across sex and results consistent with the claim were reported. In most articles (58%), no test was conducted that could have supported the title claim. Only 15% of studies on non-human animals supported the claim with appropriate evidence, which was significantly less frequently than studies on human participants (34%;
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.