One of the consequences of the value liberalism that has become increasingly popular in Western countries over the past few decades has been a desire to identify gender-dependent needs in different types of medical treatment. It was therefore interesting to note that Madeline T. Olivier and her colleagues demonstrated in their recent study that claims about sex occur disproportionately often in the titles of neuroscience research articles compared with other fields of medicine.
The researchers therefore wanted to know what kind of research evidence these articles were based on. For this reason, they analyzed 200 recent articles in the behavioral and brain sciences whose titles made a claim about an effect dependent on sex or gender identity.
* * *
The researchers found that only 24 percent of the analyzed research reports supported the claim with appropriate evidence—that is, an effect between the sexes was statistically tested, and the results were consistent with the claim. In nine percent of the studies, an appropriate test was described, but the results were incomplete or entirely absent. In another nine percent, the results directly contradicted the claim being made. In the majority of the articles (58%), the statistical significance of differences in effects between the sexes was not compared at all.
Appropriate evidence was least common in research on behavioral sciences, clinical neurology, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, and substance use (18%), and most common in psychology (39%). In animal studies, claims were supported by appropriate evidence significantly less often (15%) than in studies involving humans (34%).
Particularly concerning is the fact that the use of appropriate analytical methods was not associated with the prestige of the journal or the number of citations received by the article. In other words, peer review in the field in question has not functioned properly. Thus, neither the publication venue nor the number of citations an article has received can be used to infer the reliability of the claims made in the research.
* * *
Overall, the researchers concluded that claims about effects dependent on sex or gender identity made in the behavioral and brain sciences are most often not based on appropriate evidence. They therefore called into question—and effectively characterized as quackery—the use of sex-dependent research as a basis for medical treatments.
This is an issue that should be recognized both among European physicians and among civil society movements concerned with women's rights and gender diversity. Above all, it should be recognized by wellbeing services counties struggling with their finances, which can hardly be expected to benefit from spending their scarce resources on treatments related to sex-specific neurology or psychology.
Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gender Reassignment May Not Help—and Could Even Worsen Mental Health
Who Is Interested in the Rights of Nigerien Homosexuals?
Racial Bias in U.S. Traffic Policing
