Sex-Inclusive Biomedicine: Are New Policies Increasing Rigor and Reproducibility?

Testosterone, gender identity and gender-stereotyped personality attributes

Sex/gender differences in personality associated with gender stereotyped behavior are widely studied in psychology yet remain a subject of ongoing debate. Exposure to testosterone during developmental periods is considered to be a primary mediator of many sex/gender differences in behavior. Extensions of this research has led to both lay beliefs and initial research about individual differences in basal testosterone in adulthood relating to "masculine" personality. In this study, we explored the relationships between testosterone, gender identity, and gender stereotyped personality attributes in a sample of over 400 university students (65 % female assigned at birth). Participants provided ratings of their self-perceived masculinity and femininity, resulting in a continuous measure of gender identity, and a set of agentic and communal personality attributes. A saliva sample was also provided for assay of basal testosterone. Results showed no compelling evidence that basal testosterone correlates with gender-stereotyped personality attributes or explains the relationship between sex/gender identity and these attributes, across, within, or covarying out sex assigned at birth. Contributing to a more gender diverse approach to assessing sex/gender relationships with personality and testosterone, our continuous measure of self-perceived masculinity and femininity predicted additional variance in personality beyond binary sex and showed some preliminary but weak relationships with testosterone. Results from this study cast doubt on the activational testosterone-masculinity hypothesis for explaining sex differences in gender stereotyped traits and within-sex/gender variation in attributes associated with agency and communality.

Training in the implementation of sex and gender research policies: an evaluation of publicly available online courses

BACKGROUND

Recently implemented research policies requiring the inclusion of females and males have created an urgent need for effective training in how to account for sex, and in some cases gender, in biomedical studies.

METHODS

Here, we evaluated three sets of publicly available online training materials on this topic: (1) Integrating Sex & Gender in Health Research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); (2) Sex as a Biological Variable: A Primer from the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH); and (3) The Sex and Gender Dimension in Biomedical Research, developed as part of "Leading Innovative measures to reach gender Balance in Research Activities" (LIBRA) from the European Commission. We reviewed each course with respect to their coverage of (1) What is required by the policy; (2) Rationale for the policy; (3) Handling of the concepts "sex" and "gender;" (4) Research design and analysis; and (5) Interpreting and reporting data.

RESULTS

All three courses discussed the importance of including males and females to better generalize results, discover potential sex differences, and tailor treatments to men and women. The entangled nature of sex and gender, operationalization of sex, and potential downsides of focusing on sex more than other sources of variation were minimally discussed. Notably, all three courses explicitly endorsed invalid analytical approaches that produce bias toward false positive discoveries of difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests a need for revised or new training materials that incorporate four major topics: precise operationalization of sex, potential risks of over-emphasis on sex as a category, recognition of gender and sex as complex and entangled, and rigorous study design and data analysis.

Sex contextualism in laboratory research: Enhancing rigor and precision in the study of sex-related variables

Understanding sex-related variation in health and illness requires rigorous and precise approaches to revealing underlying mechanisms. A first step is to recognize that sex is not in and of itself a causal mechanism; rather, it is a classification system comprising a set of categories, usually assigned according to a range of varying traits. Moving beyond sex as a system of classification to working with concrete and measurable sex-related variables is necessary for precision. Whether and how these sex-related variables matter-and what patterns of difference they contribute to-will vary in context-specific ways. Second, when researchers incorporate these sex-related variables into research designs, rigorous analytical methods are needed to allow strongly supported conclusions. Third, the interpretation and reporting of sex-related variation require care to ensure that basic and preclinical research advance health equity for all.

Gender minority stress and diurnal cortisol profiles among transgender and gender diverse people in the United States

The field of behavioral neuroendocrinology has only begun to explore the lived experiences of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people exposed to stigma. In light of escalating attacks and legislation targeting TGD people in the United States, it is crucial to examine the physiological pathways through which gender minority stressors become embodied, impact health, and contribute to health inequities. The Trans Resilience and Health Study included baseline data collection from fall 2019 to spring 2020 from a sample of 124 TGD people, reflecting a diversity of gender identities (e.g., trans masculine, trans feminine, and nonbinary) and ages (range = 19-70 years old; M = 34.10), living in Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, and Tennessee. These analyses examine experiences of gender-related enacted stigma in association with hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)-axis functioning. Among those experiencing the highest levels of enacted stigma, findings show a blunted cortisol awakening response and sluggish daily decline that resulted in elevated concentrations at bedtime compared to those experiencing less enacted stigma. These results of flattened diurnal activity are consistent with an emergent literature on discrimination as a social determinant of potential stress pathophysiology. In contrast, community connectedness was associated with a larger, more dynamic cortisol awakening response. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating gender-minority stress and resilience measures when studying HPA-axis functioning among TGD people.

Best practices to promote rigor and reproducibility in the era of sex-inclusive research

To enhance inclusivity and rigor, many funding agencies and journals now mandate the inclusion of females as well as males in biomedical studies. These mandates have enhanced generalizability and created unprecedented opportunities to discover sex differences. However, education in sound methods to consider sex as a subgroup category has lagged behind, resulting in a problematic literature in which study designs, analyses, and interpretations of results are often flawed. Here, we outline best practices for complying with sex-inclusive mandates, both for studies in which sex differences are a primary focus and for those in which they are not. Our recommendations are organized within the "4 Cs of Studying Sex to Strengthen Science: Consideration, Collection, Characterization and Communication," a framework developed by the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Following these guidelines should help researchers include females and males in their studies while at the same time upholding high standards of rigor.

Why and How to Account for Sex and Gender in Brain and Behavioral Research

Long overlooked in neuroscience research, sex and gender are increasingly included as key variables potentially impacting all levels of neurobehavioral analysis. Still, many neuroscientists do not understand the difference between the terms "sex" and "gender," the complexity and nuance of each, or how to best include them as variables in research designs. This TechSights article outlines rationales for considering the influence of sex and gender across taxa, and provides technical guidance for strengthening the rigor and reproducibility of such analyses. This guidance includes the use of appropriate statistical methods for comparing groups as well as controls for key covariates of sex (e.g., total intracranial volume) and gender (e.g., income, caregiver stress, bias). We also recommend approaches for interpreting and communicating sex- and gender-related findings about the brain, which have often been misconstrued by neuroscientists and the lay public alike.

Considering Sex as a Variable at a Research University: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices

Biomedical research has a history of excluding females as research subjects, which threatens rigor, reproducibility, and inclusivity. In 2016, to redress this bias, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented a policy requiring the consideration of sex as a biological variable (SABV) in all studies involving vertebrate animals, including humans. Unless strongly justified, females and males must be included in all studies and results reported disaggregated by sex. Recent evidence indicates, however, that misunderstandings of the policy and other significant barriers impede its implementation. To shed light on those barriers at our home institution, we conducted a study funded by the Emory University Specialized Center of Research Excellence on Sex Differences (SCORE). In semistructured interviews of Emory principal investigators in the biological sciences, we noted their knowledge of what the policy entails and why it was implemented, their attitudes toward it, and the extent to which it has or has not changed their research practices. Although attitudes toward SABV were generally positive, most researchers face challenges with respect to its implementation. We suggest interventions that can be mounted at the level of home institutions, such as raising awareness of locally available core facilities, to help address these challenges. More training is needed on what the policy asks of researchers, how sex is defined, the nonhormonal ways that sex differences can manifest, and best practices for statistical analysis of sex-based data. Home institutions may also want to explore ways to lessen the stress associated with rollout of SABV policy.