↓ Skip to main content

From sexless to sexy: Why it is time for human genetics to consider and report analyses of sex

Overview of attention for article published in Biology of Sex Differences, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
From sexless to sexy: Why it is time for human genetics to consider and report analyses of sex
Published in
Biology of Sex Differences, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13293-017-0136-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew S. Powers, Phillip H. Smith, Sherry A. McKee, Marissa A. Ehringer

Abstract

Science has come a long way with regard to the consideration of sex differences in clinical and preclinical research, but one field remains behind the curve: human statistical genetics. The goal of this commentary is to raise awareness and discussion about how to best consider and evaluate possible sex effects in the context of large-scale human genetic studies. Over the course of this commentary, we reinforce the importance of interpreting genetic results in the context of biological sex, establish evidence that sex differences are not being considered in human statistical genetics, and discuss how best to conduct and report such analyses. Our recommendation is to run stratified analyses by sex no matter the sample size or the result and report the findings. Summary statistics from stratified analyses are helpful for meta-analyses, and patterns of sex-dependent associations may be hidden in a combined dataset. In the age of declining sequencing costs, large consortia efforts, and a number of useful control samples, it is now time for the field of human genetics to appropriately include sex in the design, analysis, and reporting of results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 18%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,737,521
of 17,392,251 outputs
Outputs from Biology of Sex Differences
#151
of 358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,160
of 273,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology of Sex Differences
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,392,251 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them