The impact of sex/gender-specific funding and editorial policies on biomedical research outcomes: a cross-national analysis (2000–2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflecting sex and gender characteristics in biomedical research is critical to improving health outcomes and reducing adverse effects from medical treatments. This study investigates the impact of sex/gender-specific funding policies and journal editorial standards on the integration of sex/gender analysis in biomedical research publications. Using data from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries between 2000 and 2021, we assessed how these policies influenced research output in the fields of medicine and life sciences. Our findings show that countries with progressive funding policies and journals promoting sex/gender-based reporting have significantly improved research quality and publication rates. This highlights the importance of coordinated policy efforts and editorial practices in advancing integrated sex/gender research. We recommend continued global efforts from policymakers, funding bodies, and journals to embed sex/gender perspectives in scientific inquiry, ensuring more effective and equitable biomedical advancements.
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 | 0.078 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".