Meta Data Analysis of Sex Distribution of Study Samples Reported in Summer Biomechanics, Bioengineering, and Biotransport Annual Conference Abstracts.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 BIOPHYSICS
Frederick Sebastian, Ana I Vargas, Julia Clarin, Anthony Hurgoi, Rouzbeh Amini
{"title":"Meta Data Analysis of Sex Distribution of Study Samples Reported in Summer Biomechanics, Bioengineering, and Biotransport Annual Conference Abstracts.","authors":"Frederick Sebastian, Ana I Vargas, Julia Clarin, Anthony Hurgoi, Rouzbeh Amini","doi":"10.1115/1.4064032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The biased use of male subjects in biomedical research has created limitations, underscoring the importance of including women to enhance the outcomes of evidence-based medicine and to promote human health. While federal policies (e.g., the 1993 Revitalization Act and the 2016 Sex as a Biological Variable Act) have aimed to improve sex balance in studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), data on sex inclusivity in non-NIH funded research remain limited. The objective of this study was to analyze the trend of sex inclusion in abstracts submitted to the Summer Biomechanics, Bioengineering, & Biotransport Conference (SB3C) over 7 years. We scored every abstract accepted to SB3C, and the findings revealed that approximately 20% of total abstracts included sex-related information, and this trend remained stable. Surprisingly, there was no significant increase in abstracts, including both sexes and those with balanced female and male samples. The proportion of abstracts with balanced sexes was notably lower than those including both sexes. Additionally, we examined whether the exclusion of one sex from the corresponding studies was justified by the research questions. Female-only studies had a 50% justification rate, while male-only studies had only 2% justification. Disparity in sex inclusion in SB3C abstracts was apparent, prompting us to encourage scientists to be more mindful of the sex of the research samples. Addressing sex inclusivity in biomechanics and mechanobiology research is essential for advancing medical knowledge and for promoting better healthcare outcomes for everyone.</p>","PeriodicalId":54871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions of the Asme","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions of the Asme","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4064032","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The biased use of male subjects in biomedical research has created limitations, underscoring the importance of including women to enhance the outcomes of evidence-based medicine and to promote human health. While federal policies (e.g., the 1993 Revitalization Act and the 2016 Sex as a Biological Variable Act) have aimed to improve sex balance in studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), data on sex inclusivity in non-NIH funded research remain limited. The objective of this study was to analyze the trend of sex inclusion in abstracts submitted to the Summer Biomechanics, Bioengineering, & Biotransport Conference (SB3C) over 7 years. We scored every abstract accepted to SB3C, and the findings revealed that approximately 20% of total abstracts included sex-related information, and this trend remained stable. Surprisingly, there was no significant increase in abstracts, including both sexes and those with balanced female and male samples. The proportion of abstracts with balanced sexes was notably lower than those including both sexes. Additionally, we examined whether the exclusion of one sex from the corresponding studies was justified by the research questions. Female-only studies had a 50% justification rate, while male-only studies had only 2% justification. Disparity in sex inclusion in SB3C abstracts was apparent, prompting us to encourage scientists to be more mindful of the sex of the research samples. Addressing sex inclusivity in biomechanics and mechanobiology research is essential for advancing medical knowledge and for promoting better healthcare outcomes for everyone.

《夏季生物力学、生物工程和生物移植年会摘要》中报道的研究样本性别分布的元数据分析。
生物医学研究中对男性受试者的偏见使用造成了局限,突显了将女性纳入其中对提高循证医学成果和促进人类健康的重要性。虽然联邦政策(例如,1993年的《振兴法案》和2016年的《性别作为生物变量法案》)旨在改善美国国立卫生研究院资助的研究中的性别平衡,但非美国国立卫生院资助研究中关于性别包容性的数据仍然有限。本研究的目的是分析提交给Summer Biomechanics,Bioengineering,&;生物运输会议(SB3C)历时七年。我们对SB3C接受的每一篇摘要进行了评分,结果显示,大约20%的摘要包含了性别相关信息,并且这一趋势保持稳定。令人惊讶的是,包括两性或男女样本平衡的摘要没有显著增加。性别平衡的摘要比例明显低于包括两性的摘要。此外,我们还研究了将一个性别排除在相应研究之外是否符合研究问题。仅限女性的研究有50%的正当性,而仅限男性的研究只有2%的正当性。SB3C摘要中的性别差异显而易见,这促使我们鼓励科学家更加注意研究样本的性别。在生物力学和机械生物学研究中解决性别包容性问题对于提高医学知识和促进每个人获得更好的医疗保健结果至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
169
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Artificial Organs and Prostheses; Bioinstrumentation and Measurements; Bioheat Transfer; Biomaterials; Biomechanics; Bioprocess Engineering; Cellular Mechanics; Design and Control of Biological Systems; Physiological Systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信