Gendered innovation in health and medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Gendered Innovations” integrates sex and gender analysis into all phases of biomedical and health research to assure excellence and quality in outcomes. This article reports on the interdisciplinary, international collaboration that produced: 1) state-of-the-art methods of sex and gender analysis for health and medicine; and 2) case studies to illustrate how gender analysis leads to discovery in biomedicine and better outcomes in health research: osteoporosis research in men, the genetics of sex determination, heart disease in women, stem cell research, animal research, nutrigenomics and degendering knee implants. The article concludes with a short review of policy at the Canadian, US, and European institutes of health, medical curricula, and policies for peer-reviewed journals in relation to reporting sex/gender analysis in 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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".