Human studies of mitochondrial biology demonstrate an overall lack of binary sex differences: A multivariate meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mitochondria are maternally inherited organelles that play critical tissue‐specific roles, including hormone synthesis and energy production, that influence human development, health, and aging. However, whether mitochondria from women and men exhibit consistent biological differences remains unclear, representing a major gap in knowledge. This meta‐analysis systematically examined four domains and six subdomains of mitochondrial biology (total 39 measures), including mitochondrial content, respiratory capacity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, morphometry, and mitochondrial DNA copy number. Standardized effect sizes (Hedge's g ) of sex differences were computed for each measure using data in 2258 participants (51.5% women) from 50 studies. Only two measures demonstrated aggregate binary sex differences: higher mitochondrial content in women's WAT and isolated leukocyte subpopulations ( g = 0.20, χ 2 p = .01), and higher ROS production in men's skeletal muscle ( g = 0.49, χ 2 p < .0001). Sex differences showed weak to no correlation with age or BMI. Studies with small sample sizes tended to overestimate effect sizes ( r = −.17, p < .001), and sex differences varied by tissue examined. Our findings point to a wide variability of findings in the literature concerning possible binary sex differences in mitochondrial biology. Studies specifically designed to capture sex‐ and gender‐related differences in mitochondrial biology are needed, including detailed considerations of physical activity and sex hormones.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".