Summary
This systematic review examined sex bias and omission in published neuroscience research, finding that both practices varied significantly by research model organism and journal outlet. The authors report that whilst sex bias and omission were documented across the field, the presence of reported NIH funding did not significantly predict lower rates of these reporting gaps. The work contributes to ongoing discourse on research quality and reproducibility in neuroscience.
Regional applicability
The findings are relevant to UK neuroscience research institutions and funding bodies (such as UKRI and the Wellcome Trust) seeking to improve research quality standards and ensure equitable representation in preclinical studies, though the analysis is primarily US-centric in its funding focus.
Key measures
Frequency of sex bias (unequal representation of male and female subjects) and sex omission (failure to report sex of research subjects) in published neuroscience articles; stratification by research model type and journal; relationship to reported NIH funding
Outcomes reported
The study examined the prevalence of sex bias and sex omission in neuroscience research across different model organisms and journal types, and investigated whether reported NIH funding status correlated with these biases.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.