Consideration of sex as a biological variable in diabetes research across twenty years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Sex differences exist in the risk of developing both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and in the risk of developing diabetes-associated complications. Sex differences in glucose homeostasis, islet and β cell biology, and peripheral insulin sensitivity have also been reported in multiple animals. To determine the degree to which biological sex has been addressed in published literature related to diabetes and insulin biology, we developed a scoring system to assess the inclusion of biological sex in papers related to these topics. We scored manuscripts published in Diabetes , published by the American Diabetes Association, as this journal focuses on diabetes and diabetes-related research. We scored papers published across three years within a 20-year period (1999, 2009, 2019), a timeframe that spans the introduction of funding agency and journal policies to improve the consideration of biological sex as a variable. Our analysis shows fewer than 15% of papers used sex-based analysis in even one figure across all study years, a trend that was reproduced across journal-defined categories of diabetes research ( e.g ., islet studies, signal transduction). Single-sex studies accounted for approximately 40% of all manuscripts, of which >87% used male subjects only. While we observed a modest increase in the overall inclusion of sex as a biological variable during our study period, our results highlight significant opportunities to improve consideration of sex as a biological variable in diabetes research. In particular, we show that journal policies represent one way to promote better consideration of biological sex as a variable. In the long term, improved practices will reveal sex-specific mechanisms underlying diabetes risk and complications, generating insights to support the development of sex-informed prevention and treatment strategies.
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 | 0.288 | 0.467 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".