The implementation of sex-and gender-based considerations in exercise-based randomized controlled trials in individuals with stroke: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that sex-and gender-based factors may influence responses to exercise post-stroke. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines (2016) published international standards for terminology and considerations for research design and trial reporting. The extent to which sex- and gender-based considerations have been implemented in stroke exercise trials is currently unknown. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to compare the proportion of studies that have implemented sex/gender considerations before and after the publication of the SAGER guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature to identify exercise-based trials in individuals with stroke. Study titles, abstracts, introductions (hypothesis statements), methods, results and discussions were assessed for adherence to the SAGER guidelines. The proportion of studies adhering to SAGER guidelines published prior to and including December 31, 2016 and from 2017-March 2023 were compared. Of the 245 studies identified, 150 were published before December 31, 2016, of which 0 (0%) titles/abstracts, 0 (0%) introductions, 21 (14.0%) methods, 8 (5.3%) results, and 7 (4.7%) discussion sections adhered to the SAGER guidelines, and 35 (23.3%) reported proper sex and gender terminology. Of the 95 studies published between 2017-2023, 0 (0%) title/abstracts, 1 (1.0%) introduction, 16 (16.8%) methods, 5 (5.3%) results, and 10 (10.5%) discussion sections adhered to the guidelines, and 37 (38.9%) of studies included proper terminology. The implementation of sex- and gender-based considerations in stroke exercise trials is low, but positively the reporting of proper terminology has increased since the publication of standardized reporting guidelines. This study serves as a call to action for stroke rehabilitation researchers to incorporate sex- and gender-based considerations in all stages of research studies, to improve the rigour and generalizability of findings, and promote health equity.
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 | 0.314 | 0.556 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".