Reporting and misreporting of sex differences in the biological sciences

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Yesenia Garcia-Sifuentes, Emory University; Donna Maney, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2021-11-02
• Publisher: eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2021, Garcia-Sifuentes and Maney
• License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70817.sa2
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: ELIFE
• Volume: 10
• Grant/Funding Information: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.; Emory University Research Committee 00106050 - URC 2021-22 to Donna L Maney.; This paper was supported by the following grant:
• Keywords: Biology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics; NEUROSCIENCE; GENDER; None; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; sex inclusion; sex differences; meta-research; Science & Technology
• Research Categories: Psychology, General

Abstract

As part of an initiative to improve rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research, the U.S. National Institutes of Health now requires the consideration of sex as a biological variable in preclinical studies. This new policy has been interpreted by some as a call to compare males and females with each other. Researchers testing for sex differences may not be trained to do so, however, increasing risk for misinterpretation of results. Using a list of recently published articles curated by Woitowich et al. (eLife, 2020; 9:e56344), we examined reports of sex differences and non-differences across nine biological disciplines. Sex differences were claimed in the majority of the 147 articles we analyzed; however, statistical evidence supporting those differences was often missing. For example, when a sex-specific effect of a manipulation was claimed, authors usually had not tested statistically whether females and males responded differently. Thus, sex-specific Effects may be over-reported. In contrast, we also encountered practices that could mask sex differences, such as pooling the sexes without first testing for a difference. Our findings support the need for continuing efforts to train researchers how to test for and report sex differences in order to promote rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research.