Sex‐specific aging in animals: Perspective and future directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences in aging occur in many animal species, and they include sex differences in lifespan, in the onset and progression of age-associated decline, and in physiological and molecular markers of aging. Sex differences in aging vary greatly across the animal kingdom. For example, there are species with longer-lived females, species where males live longer, and species lacking sex differences in lifespan. The underlying causes of sex differences in aging remain mostly unknown. Currently, we do not understand the molecular drivers of sex differences in aging, or whether they are related to the accepted hallmarks or pillars of aging or linked to other well-characterized processes. In particular, understanding the role of sex-determination mechanisms and sex differences in aging is relatively understudied. Here, we take a comparative, interdisciplinary approach to explore various hypotheses about how sex differences in aging arise. We discuss genomic, morphological, and environmental differences between the sexes and how these relate to sex differences in aging. Finally, we present some suggestions for future research in this area and provide recommendations for promising experimental designs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it