- Sex differences in intranasal oxytocin’s effects on social outcomes: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The role of oxytocin in social behavior first came to light in the context of sex- specific social interactions, such as mother-offspring bonding. However, the ability to assess sex differences in oxytocin’s effects on human social behavior and cognition was, until recently, limited by the exclusion of women from oxytocin administration research. Methods We performed a systematic review of three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychInfo) to identify peer-reviewed original research articles that met the following criteria: (i) placebo-controlled intranasal oxytocin administration study; (ii) involving a mixed-sex sample or a replication of a study performed using a single-sex sample involving the other sex; and (iii) using a socially relevant outcome measure. Ultimately, 46 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Results Of the included studies, 5 reported significant effects of oxytocin in males only, 4 reported effects in females only, 5 reported different effects in males and females (often with respect to a subcomponent of the outcome measure), and 11 reported opposite directional effects in males and females. Male-limited effects mainly related to enhanced empathy and emotion perception, whereas female-limited pro-social effects were restricted to specific contexts. Notably, many of the studies reporting opposite directional effects were those assessing physiological outcome measures, such as amygdala activation and stress biomarker levels, under social contexts. Conclusion Taken together, these findings highlight the need for further research on moderation of oxytocin’s effects by sex and caution generalizing clinical applications of oxytocin when most research has involved male participants, i.e., in autism 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.
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 | 0.035 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".