MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312113458 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00462.2022

Female sex-specific considerations to improve rigor and reproducibility in cardiovascular research

2022· editorial· en· W4312113458 on OpenAlexaff
Danica H. Chang, Sandra M. Dumanski, Sofia B. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsAlberta Kidney Disease NetworkLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryInclusion and exclusion criteriaMedicineDiseaseInclusion (mineral)Clinical trialHealth careClinical significanceCardiovascular healthGerontologyAlternative medicinePsychologyInternal medicinePathologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women. Despite recognition of sex-specific differences in cardiovascular health, females are underrepresented across all aspects of cardiovascular research, playing a key role in reducing rigor and reproducibility in cardiovascular research and contributing to these poorer health outcomes. Therefore, we propose a framework to capture factors associated with the female sex at the preclinical, recruitment, data collection, and data analysis stages. In preclinical cardiovascular research, female experimental models are commonly excluded despite similar variability in findings compared with males. To reduce this sex bias, the inclusion of female models and the incorporation of sex as a biological variable are critical to improve reproducibility and inform clinical research and care. Although funding agencies have mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, greater efforts are needed to achieve optimal participation-to-prevalence ratio to increase the generalizability of results to real-world settings. Female participants face more stringent exclusion criteria in research compared with males owing to sex-specific factors. However, their routine exclusion from cardiovascular research is not only unethical but limits generalizability and applicability to clinical practice. Identifying sex assigned at birth, collecting information on female sex-specific and -predominant factors associated with cardiovascular health and risk, and stratifying data by sex, including adverse events, are essential to ensure reproducibility and relevance of findings to target populations. Increasing female representation and the incorporation of female sex-specific cardiovascular risk factors in cardiovascular research will not only lead to enhanced rigor and reproducibility but improved cardiovascular health for all.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207