The “sex-specific effect:” Evaluating analytical approaches to sex-dependence in the behavioral and brain sciences

Detecting a sex difference in response to a treatment or intervention, often reported as a “sex-specific effect,” requires statistical comparison of the response across sex. Here, we investigated analytical approaches used to test for such effects in the behavioral and brain sciences. Of 200 recent articles containing terms such as ‘sex-specific’ or ‘gender-dependent’ in their titles, only 24% presented appropriate evidence supporting the claim: the effect was compared statistically across sex and results consistent with the claim were reported. In most articles (58%), no test was conducted that could have supported the title claim. Only 15% of studies on non-human animals supported the claim with appropriate evidence, which was significantly less frequently than studies on human participants (34%; p = 0.002). The use of appropriate analytical approaches was unrelated to journal rank or the citation impact of the article. We conclude that claims of sex/gender-dependent effects in the behavioral and brain sciences are only infrequently supported by appropriate evidence.

• Publication year

  2026

• Venue

  bioRxiv

• Publication date

  2026-02-07

• Fields of study

  Biology, Medicine, Psychology

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.64898/2026.02.04.703900PMID 41676574PMCID 12889599
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• “Precision Medicine” and the Failed Search for Binary Brain Sex Differences to Address Gender Behavioral Health Disparities

  2025cited by this paper
• Recommendations for the inclusion and study of sex and gender in research

  2025cited by this paper
• From significant to meaningful: ATOMizing the study of sex differences and similarities.

  2025cited by this paper
• A Multivariate Bernoulli-Based Sampling Method for Multi-Label Data with Application to Meta-Research

  2025cited by this paper
• Sex/gender entanglement: A problem of knots and buckets

  2025cited by this paper
• Navigating the paradigm shift of sex inclusive preclinical research and lessons learnt

  2025cited by this paper
• Sex contextualism in laboratory research: Enhancing rigor and precision in the study of sex-related variables.

  2024cited by this paper
• The impact of sex/gender-specific funding and editorial policies on biomedical research outcomes: a cross-national analysis (2000–2021)

  2024cited by this paper
• Sex/gender diversity and behavioral neuroendocrinology in the 21st century.

  2024cited by this paper
• From means to meaning in the study of sex/gender differences and similarities.

  2024cited by this paper
• Training in the implementation of sex and gender research policies: an evaluation of publicly available online courses

  2024cited by this paper
• Remembering the null hypothesis when searching for brain sex differences

  2024cited by this paper
• Determination of sex differences requires formal test for differences: Comment on “lipoprotein‐subclass particle numbers in children with abdominal obesity”

  2023cited by this paper
• WHO's adoption of SAGER guidelines and GATHER: setting standards for better science with sex and gender in mind.

  2023cited by this paper
• Best practices to promote rigor and reproducibility in the era of sex-inclusive research

  2023influential reference
• Why and How to Account for Sex and Gender in Brain and Behavioral Research

  2023cited by this paper
• Adverse Drug Events by Sex After Adjusting for Baseline Rates of Drug Use

  2023cited by this paper
• Considering Sex as a Variable at a Research University: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices

  2023cited by this paper
• Statistical simulations show that scientists need not increase overall sample size by default when including both sexes in in vivo studies

  2023cited by this paper
• Making a ‘sex-difference fact’: Ambien dosing at the interface of policy, regulation, women’s health, and biology

  2023cited by this paper
• Sex-Inclusive Biomedicine: Are New Policies Increasing Rigor and Reproducibility?

  2023influential reference
• Multivariate Models of Animal Sex: Breaking Binaries Leads to a Better Understanding of Ecology and Evolution

  2023cited by this paper
• An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences

  2022cited by this paper
• Sex differences in the human brain: a roadmap for more careful analysis and interpretation of a biological reality

  2022cited by this paper
• The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines: Implementation and checklist development

  2022cited by this paper
• Fifth anniversary of the Sex And Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines: taking stock and looking ahead

  2021cited by this paper
• How hype and hyperbole distort the neuroscience of sex differences

  2021cited by this paper
• Reporting and misreporting of sex differences in the biological sciences

  2021influential reference
• Sex difference analyses under scrutiny

  2021cited by this paper
• The gender-binary cycle: the perpetual relations between a biological-essentialist view of gender, gender ideology, and gender-labelling and sorting

  2020cited by this paper
• A 10-year follow-up study of sex inclusion in the biological sciences

  2020cited by this paper
• Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding.

  2020cited by this paper
• Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript

  2019cited by this paper
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research

  2018cited by this paper
• Sex and Gender Differences Research Design for Basic, Clinical, and Population Studies: Essentials for Investigators

  2018cited by this paper
• Common scientific and statistical errors in obesity research

  2016influential reference
• Perils and pitfalls of reporting sex differences

  2016influential reference
• Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analyses

  2016cited by this paper
• Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

  2016influential reference
• Just like a circus: the public consumption of sex differences.

  2015cited by this paper
• When are sex-specific effects really sex-specific?

  2015cited by this paper
• Statistical inferences under the Null hypothesis: common mistakes and pitfalls in neuroimaging studies

  2015cited by this paper
• Equal ≠ The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain

  2014cited by this paper
• Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies

  2014cited by this paper
• Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience

  2013cited by this paper
• Is There Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging Investigations of Sex Differences?

  2013cited by this paper
• Hardwired for Sexism? Approaches to Sex/Gender in Neuroscience

  2012cited by this paper
• Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance

  2011cited by this paper
• Comparisons against baseline within randomised groups are often used and can be highly misleading

  2011influential reference
• Misleading Comparisons: The Fallacy of Comparing Statistical Significance

  2010cited by this paper
• The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not Itself Statistically Significant

  2006cited by this paper
• Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test.

  2004cited by this paper
• Sympercents: symmetric percentage differences on the 100 log(e) scale simplify the presentation of log transformed data.

  2000cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.