Probing the genomic landscape of human sexuality: a critical systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether human sexuality is the result of nature or nurture (or their complex interplay) represents a hot, often ideologically driven, and highly polarized debate with political and social ramifications, and with varying, conflicting findings reported in the literature. A number of heritability and behavioral genetics studies, including pedigree-based investigations, have hypothesized inheritance patterns of human sexual behaviors. On the other hand, in most twin, adoption, and nuclear family studies, it was not possible to disentangle between underlying genetic and shared environmental sources. Furthermore, these studies were not able to estimate the precise extent of genetic loading and to shed light both on the number and nature of the putative inherited factors, which remained largely unknown. Molecular genetic studies offer an unprecedented opportunity to overcome these drawbacks, by dissecting the molecular basis of human sexuality and allowing a better understanding of its biological roots if any. However, there exists no systematic review of the molecular genetics of human sexuality. Therefore, we undertook this critical systematic review and appraisal of the literature, with the ambitious aims of filling in these gaps of knowledge, especially from the methodological standpoint, and providing guidance to future studies. Sixteen studies were finally retained and overviewed in the present systematic review study. Seven studies were linkage studies, four studies utilized the candidate gene approach, and five studies were GWAS investigations. Limitations of these studies and implications for further research are discussed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".