Women's health, female health is much more than how we differ from males or men! It's how experiences change our physiology, perceptions, epigenetics & many female experiences are female specific ( i.e. contraceptives (IUD, OCs +, pregnancy, postpartum, menopause) 2/pic.twitter.com/yp5kCh7iiE
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
Hence if we are made to also look at males it actually makes no sense ( e.g. male contraceptives are scarce/not widely used, males & pregnancy don't mix). Sure we can study fatherhood but in traditional animal models fathers are absentee and so... 3/pic.twitter.com/Qbz15IUXpa
Prikaži ovu nit -
to do that you'd be studying sexual experience in one sex and sexual experience + pregnancy/postpartum in the other which is a whole different set of experiences that can't begin to approximate or be compared in a scientifically meaningful way - let alone write a grant on it /4
Prikaži ovu nit -
Studying one sex, particularly females, I would argue is exactly what will drive forward knowledge on women's health & reduce disparities in our knowledge of what matters to women's health. Why do I think that? let me tell you.../5pic.twitter.com/ee4GLMohBR
Prikaži ovu nit -
Since 1993 NIH mandated both sexes needed in clinical trials but in 2015 a study found that ONLY 26% of all trials reported sex as a variable BUT this included studies that used sex as a covariate! (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908758/ …) /6
Prikaži ovu nit -
Using sex as a covariate, rather than an outcome variable, loses information about how the sexes might be different- e.g. Mersha et al 15 who found 47 SNPs in sex-stratified analysis were reduced to 21 when sex was used as a covariate /7https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754315000518?via%3Dihub …
Prikaži ovu nit -
Many SNPs in asthma had sex interactions in the Mersha findings with opposing effects in females vs males which was lost in covariate analyses. I've been doing sex difference research from beginning of my career over 30 y ago. Many of the sex effects we see ARE interactions. /8
Prikaži ovu nit -
So my point..even when you force people to use BOTH sexes, they do not analyses by sex, and even when they analyse by sex they often use sex as a covariate not an outcome variable! which completely misses the point.../9
Prikaži ovu nit -
So I would argue if we really want research on women's health we need more research on females. What happens when we do study female-only or male-only diseases? for a clue look to survival rates in prostate & female-only breast cancer /10pic.twitter.com/y2pjgFmxNj
Prikaži ovu nit -
Survival rates are higher & the most progress has been made in prostate cancer survival rates over time...these good news stories are likely due to many reasons but one of them might be that sex was exclusively studied in these diseases & therefore more progress made /11pic.twitter.com/M1yK64TgMk
Prikaži ovu nit -
But let's keep in mind that for women's health you don't need to compare to men. Female health is not just how we are different from males! How female unique experience shape female health is important to study &
#TimesUp for more research on females /12 PMID 29287628Prikaži ovu nit -
Some ex: parity is associated with altered CVD, AD, metabolic disease risk later in life. parity alters the neurogenic response to estrogens in mid life PMID: 20034703 & neurogenesis levels long-term PMID: 30825663, for review see https://tinyurl.com/y6ygepvs PMID 27039345 /13
Prikaži ovu nit -
Frankly for women's health: menopause matters, OC use matters, parity matters & for these issues we need to study females only. We need funders, policy makers, & reviewers to understand & support more funding for women's health specific questions so we can close that gap /14pic.twitter.com/PGNKr87I5f
Prikaži ovu nit -
NOTE since 2010 - the number of articles that have male only has increased (!) while studies with females only "stable and low" plus even the studies that included both sexes NB the % analysing sex was consistently low ~14% https://www.eneuro.org/content/4/6/ENEURO.0278-17.2017 …
#SABV#SGBA is not enough /15pic.twitter.com/vHYX7MjcHR
Prikaži ovu nit -
PS for those scientists with neuro focus among you...please note my call for special issue on women's brain health for FIN.Let's get some more literature out there to convince others this is imp topic. Email me or the journal (IF 7.852) for more info:https://www.journals.elsevier.com/frontiers-in-neuroendocrinology/call-for-papers/special-issue-call-for-review-articles-beyond-sex-difference …
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.