Cardiovascular Health - Why We Need An Intersectional Sex and Gender Approach
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
A sex and gender perspective in research involves an appreciation for the intersectionality between sex, gender, and other social factors (i.e. sexuality, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, etc.) with the risk and development of disease. This piece argues for the greater adoption of a sex and gender perspective in cardiovascular (CV) research. The absence of a sex and gender perspective has led to an underrepresentation of women and LGBTQ+ populations in studies and an underappreciation for both the biological and psychosocial impacts of sex and gender on pathogenesis.1,2 As a result of this insufficient understanding, these populations have faced a greater disease burden, poorer outcomes, and inequitable health interventions.3 The incorporation of a sex and gender lens in CV research will serve to lessen the burden of disease on these underserved populations through developing a greater understanding of the unique differences in the risk and progression of disease. Accordingly, this opinion piece hopes to illustrate the need for a sex and gender perspective in CV research in order to urge researchers, journal publishers, and supporting bodies to include sex and gender as a priority in future research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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