↓ Skip to main content

The evolution of sex differences in disease

Overview of attention for article published in Biology of Sex Differences, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
The evolution of sex differences in disease
Published in
Biology of Sex Differences, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13293-015-0023-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward H Morrow

Abstract

It is now becoming widely recognized that there are important sex differences in disease. These include rates of disease incidence, symptoms and age of onset. These differences between the sexes can be seen as a subset of the more general phenomenon of sexual dimorphism of quantitative phenotypes. From a genetic point of view, this is paradoxical, since the vast majority of genetic material is shared between the sexes. How can males and females differ in so many ways and yet have a common genetic code? Traditionally, the modifying action of hormones has been offered as a solution to this paradox, but experiments disentangling the effects of hormones and sex-chromosomes have shown that this cannot be the sole explanation. In this review, I outline current ideas about the evolutionary origins of sex differences in phenotypes, with a particular focus on how sex differences in disease can arise. I also discuss how sex differences in themselves can generate new risk factors for disease, in effect becoming a new environmental factor, as well as briefly reviewing more general evidence for sexually antagonistic selection and genetic variation within humans. Taking an evolutionary view on sex differences in disease provides an opportunity for greater understanding of mechanisms of disease and as such provides a clear motivation for clinicians to explore how therapies may be tailored to the individual in a sex-dependent way.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 29%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Neuroscience 8 9%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,002,887
of 16,750,089 outputs
Outputs from Biology of Sex Differences
#78
of 344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,116
of 264,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology of Sex Differences
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,750,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 264,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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