ReviewBiology of sex differences2026
Sex and gender classification in clinical decision-support tools: a cross-sectional review of tools on MDCalc.
Review in Biology of sex differences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs algorithm-based decision support tools become increasingly integrated into clinical workflows, particularly with the popularization of artificial intelligence, the conceptualization and operationalization of demographic variables such as sex and gender have implications for how these variables are measured and interpreted. Misalignment between variable labels, response categories, and underlying data sources may introduce measurement error or ambiguity in algorithm inputs, potentially affecting clinical interpretation and downstream decision-making. This concern reflects issues of variable specification rather than terminology alone. The objective of this study is to evaluate how sex and gender are labeled, operationalized, and aligned with underlying source data in clinical decision-support tools.
methodsIn May 2025, we conducted a cross-sectional review of clinical tools available on MDCalc, a widely-used online repository of clinical decision-support tools derived from biomedical research and clinical guidelines. We assessed tools with a demographic input labeled as sex, gender, or both. Main measures were the presence and operationalization of sex or gender variables within tool interfaces and corresponding primary references. Variable labeling (sex or gender), response categories (e.g., male/female or man/woman), reported data collection methods in primary references, and concordance between tool interfaces and source literature. Tools were also qualitatively categorized by potential clinical impact (high, medium, low).
resultsAmong 821 tools screened, 84 (10.2%) included a sex or gender variable. Of these, 69 (82.1%) labeled the variable as sex and 15 (17.9%) as gender. Binary response categories were used in 83 tools (98.8%). Sex-gender conflation occurred in 16 tools (19.0%), reflecting inconsistencies between variable labels and response categories used as inputs. Primary references were available for 76 tools (90.5%); among those that explicitly reported sex or gender collection, 18 (25.7%) demonstrated sex-gender conflation. Most tools were classified as having medium (51.2%) or high (33.3%) potential clinical impact.
conclusionSex and gender are inconsistently labeled and operationalized in clinical decision-support tools. One in five tools demonstrated misalignment between variable labels, response categories, and underlying source data. Greater conceptual clarity and transparency of sex and gender variables may reduce ambiguity and strengthen the validity, interpretability, and equity of algorithm-based clinical decision tools.
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.