Sex-specific immune mechanisms in PTSD symptomatology and risk: A translational overview and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Altered immune function in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may play a role in the disorder pathophysiology and onset. Women are more likely to develop PTSD, suggesting potential sex-specific inflammatory mechanisms underlying the dichotomous prevalence and risk of PTSD in men and women. In this review we examine the available literature to better assess the state of knowledge in the field. In humans, increased systemic inflammation is found in both men and women with PTSD, but seems to be at a greater extend in women. Despite the existence of few clinical studies taking account of sex as a factor in the observed immune changes in PTSD, challenges in the study of sex-specific immune function in humans include: controlling for confounding variates such as the type of trauma and the ethnicity; and limited methodologies available to study central nervous system (CNS)-relevant changes. Thus, preclinical studies are a valuable tool to provide us with key insights on sex-specific peripheral and CNS immune mechanisms underlying PTSD. Available preclinical studies reported increased systemic and CNS inflammation, as well as elevated trafficking of monocytes from the periphery to the brain in both male and female rodents. To date, psychological trauma-induced inflammation is more robust in female vs male rodents. Limitations of preclinical studies include animal models hardly applicable to female rodents, and hormonal changes across estrus phases that may affect immune function. The present review: (1) highlights the key findings from both human and animal studies, (2) provides guidance to address limitations; and (3) discusses the gap of knowledge on the complex intertwined interaction between the brain, neurovascular, and systemic units.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".