Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding

被引:76
|
作者
Mamlouk, Gabriella M. [1 ]
Dorris, David M. [1 ]
Barrett, Lily R. [2 ]
Meitzen, John [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] NC State Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Campus Box 7617,144 David Clark Labs, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[2] Florida State Univ, Dept Psychol, Tallahassee, FL 32306 USA
[3] NC State Univ, Ctr Human Hlth & Environm, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
关键词
Sex bias; Sex omission; Sex reporting; Sex difference; Women's health; Male; Female; Neuroscience; BASIC SCIENCE; ADDRESSING SEX; BALANCE SEX; INCLUSION; BRAIN; POLICY; CELL; INCREASE; GENDER; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.yfrne.2020.100835
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Neuroscience research has historically demonstrated sex bias that favors male over female research subjects, as well as sex omission, which is the lack of reporting sex. Here we analyzed the status of sex bias and omission in neuroscience research published across six different journals in 2017. Regarding sex omission, 16% of articles did not report sex. Regarding sex bias, 52% of neuroscience articles reported using both males and females, albeit only 15% of articles using both males and females reported assessing sex as an experimental variable. Overrepresentation of the sole use of males compared to females persisted (26% versus 5%, respectively). Sex bias and omission differed across research models, but not by reported NIH funding status. Sex omission differed across journals. These findings represent the latest information regarding the complex status of sex in neuroscience research and illustrate the continued need for thoughtful and informed action to enhance scientific discovery.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Problems and Progress regarding Sex Bias and Omission in Neuroscience Research
    Will, Tyler R.
    Proano, Stephanie B.
    Thomas, Anly M.
    Kunz, Lindsey M.
    Thompson, Kelly C.
    Ginnari, Laura A.
    Jones, Clay H.
    Lucas, Sarah-Catherine
    Reavis, Elizabeth M.
    Dorris, David M.
    Meitzen, John
    [J]. ENEURO, 2017, 4 (06)
  • [2] Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research
    Beery, Annaliese K.
    Zucker, Irving
    [J]. NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS, 2011, 35 (03): : 565 - 572
  • [3] The Future of NIH Research Funding
    Kitt, C.
    Williamson, J.
    Paganetti, H.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (06) : 2791 - +
  • [4] SOURCES OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH FUNDING
    KELLER, JT
    SAUNDERS, MC
    [J]. NEUROSURGERY, 1981, 8 (01) : 118 - 128
  • [5] Dilemmas of NIH funding for cardiovascular research
    Fuster, V
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 1998, 98 (13) : 1253 - 1254
  • [6] NIH funding restricts neurological research
    不详
    [J]. LANCET NEUROLOGY, 2007, 6 (05): : 379 - 379
  • [7] Funding unfunded NIH research applications
    Duenas, Martin A.
    Bisceglio, Isabelle
    Pannucci, James
    [J]. SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2016, 8 (331)
  • [8] NIH, NFL, and Concussion Research Funding
    不详
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2014, 55 (02) : 12N - 12N
  • [9] Research funding - Peer review at NIH
    Scarpa, T
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2006, 311 (5757) : 41 - 41
  • [10] DISPARITIES IN NIH FUNDING FOR EPILEPSY RESEARCH
    Young, William B.
    Shapiro, Robert E.
    Meador, Kimford J.
    French, Jacqueline
    Loring, David W.
    Pennell, Page B.
    [J]. NEUROLOGY, 2012, 78 (04) : 292 - 294