MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117542863 · doi:10.31579/2578-8949/199

Women Live Longer Than Men (and Scientists Now Know Why) The Biology of Sex Difference

2025· article· W7117542863 on OpenAlex
Rehan Haider

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology and Dermatitis · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of KarachiUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsLongevityLife expectancySociocultural evolutionDiseaseVulnerability (computing)Public healthHealthy agingStressor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life expectancy consistently favors women across nearly all regions of the world, with females living 4–7 years longer than males on average. Although this trend has been observed for more than a century, recent advances in genomics, endocrinology, epidemiology, and behavioral sciences have provided clearer explanations for this biological and social phenomenon. This paper investigates the key scientific mechanisms responsible for women’s greater longevity, integrating evidence from molecular studies, lifestyle analyses, mortality trends, and cross-cultural research. Emerging evidence indicates that biological advantages—such as the presence of two X chromosomes, estrogen-mediated cardio protection, stronger innate immunity, and more efficient DNA repair pathways—contribute significantly to female survival. Meanwhile, men show higher early-life mortality, increased inflammation, faster telomere shortening, and greater vulnerability to age-related disease. Behavioral factors further widen the gap: men engage more frequently in high-risk activities, have higher rates of smoking and alcohol use, and are less likely to seek preventive healthcare. Sociocultural influences—including gendered occupational patterns and stress exposure—also modify lifespan outcomes. This study uses a mixed-method systematic review combined with secondary analysis of global mortality datasets to evaluate sex-specific determinants of longevity. Quantitative findings show significantly higher all-cause mortality among men, particularly from cardiovascular disease, injuries, and infectious diseases. Qualitative findings highlight social expectations, risk behavior, and healthcare-seeking patterns as additional contributors. Understanding why women live longer has implications for public health, aging research, healthcare planning, and gender-specific disease prevention. The study concludes that longevity differences result from a complex interplay of biology, behavior, and environment. Addressing modifiable male-specific risk factors may reduce mortality and extend life expectancy in men globally.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it