IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v16y2025i1d10.1038_s41467-025-58560-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Sex Inclusive Research Framework to address sex bias in preclinical research proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Natasha A. Karp

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Manuel Berdoy

    (University of Oxford)

  • Kelly Gray

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Lilian Hunt

    (Wellcome Trust)

  • Maggy Jennings

    (Animals in Science Department)

  • Angela Kerton

    (The Learning Curve (Development) Ltd)

  • Matt Leach

    (Newcastle University)

  • Jordi L. Tremoleda

    (Queen Mary University of London)

  • Jon Gledhill

    (Newcastle University)

  • Esther J. Pearl

    (The NC3Rs)

  • Nathalie Percie du Sert

    (The NC3Rs)

  • Benjamin Phillips

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Penny S. Reynolds

    (University of Florida)

  • Kathy Ryder

    (Stormont Estate)

  • S. Clare Stanford

    (University College London)

  • Sara Wells

    (Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
    The Francis Crick Institute)

  • Lucy Whitfield

    (OWL Vets Ltd)

Abstract

An interactive Sex Inclusive Research Framework (SIRF) supports the evaluation of in vivo and ex vivo research proposals to address the risk of sex bias in preclinical research. The framework delivers a traffic light classification, indicating whether a proposal is appropriate, risky, or insufficient with regard to sex inclusion. This tool is designed for use by researchers, (animal) ethical review boards, and funders to generate a rigorous and reproducible assessment of sex inclusion at the proposal level, thus helping address and resolve the embedded sex bias in preclinical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Natasha A. Karp & Manuel Berdoy & Kelly Gray & Lilian Hunt & Maggy Jennings & Angela Kerton & Matt Leach & Jordi L. Tremoleda & Jon Gledhill & Esther J. Pearl & Nathalie Percie du Sert & Benjamin Phil, 2025. "The Sex Inclusive Research Framework to address sex bias in preclinical research proposals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-6, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-58560-5
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-58560-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58560-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-025-58560-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sophie Horstmann & Corinna Schmechel & Kerstin Palm & Sabine Oertelt-Prigione & Gabriele Bolte, 2022. "The Operationalisation of Sex and Gender in Quantitative Health–Related Research: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Benjamin Phillips & Timo N Haschler & Natasha A Karp, 2023. "Statistical simulations show that scientists need not increase overall sample size by default when including both sexes in in vivo studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Janine A. Clayton & Francis S. Collins, 2014. "Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies," Nature, Nature, vol. 509(7500), pages 282-283, May.
    4. Natasha A. Karp & Jeremy Mason & Arthur L. Beaudet & Yoav Benjamini & Lynette Bower & Robert E. Braun & Steve D.M. Brown & Elissa J. Chesler & Mary E. Dickinson & Ann M. Flenniken & Helmut Fuchs & Mar, 2017. "Prevalence of sexual dimorphism in mammalian phenotypic traits," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lori van den Hurk & Sarah Hiltner & Sabine Oertelt-Prigione, 2022. "Operationalization and Reporting Practices in Manuscripts Addressing Gender Differences in Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Bibliographical Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Laura A. B. Wilson & Susanne R. K. Zajitschek & Malgorzata Lagisz & Jeremy Mason & Hamed Haselimashhadi & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2022. "Sex differences in allometry for phenotypic traits in mice indicate that females are not scaled males," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0099900 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Andrew T Marshall & Angela T Liu & Niall P Murphy & Nigel T Maidment & Sean B Ostlund, 2017. "Sex-specific enhancement of palatability-driven feeding in adolescent rats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, July.
    5. Sofoklis Goulas & Silvia Griselda & Rigissa Megalokonomou, 2024. "Comparative Advantage and Gender Gap in STEM," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(6), pages 1937-1980.
    6. Sarah Bach & Melissa M Morrow & Kristin D Zhao & Richard E Hughes, 2015. "Sex Distribution of Study Samples Reported in American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting Abstracts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-5, March.
    7. Marek A. Motyka & Ahmed Al-Imam & Aneta Haligowska & Michał Michalak, 2022. "Helping Women Suffering from Drug Addiction: Needs, Barriers, and Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Takuji Usui & Malcolm R Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Alistair M Senior & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2021. "Meta-analysis of variation suggests that embracing variability improves both replicability and generalizability in preclinical research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Noriko Itoh & Yuichiro Itoh & Cassandra E. Meyer & Timothy Takazo Suen & Diego Cortez-Delgado & Michelle Rivera Lomeli & Sophia Wendin & Sri Sanjana Somepalli & Lisa C. Golden & Allan MacKenzie-Graham, 2023. "Estrogen receptor beta in astrocytes modulates cognitive function in mid-age female mice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Benjamin Phillips & Timo N Haschler & Natasha A Karp, 2024. "A response to “Realism and robustness require increased sample size when studying both sexes”," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(4), pages 1-2, April.
    11. repec:plo:pbio00:1002151 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. April Schweinhart & Janine Austin Clayton, 2018. "Reversing the Trends toward Shorter Lives and Poorer Health for U.S. Women: A Call for Innovative Interdisciplinary Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Ashwin V. Kammula & Alejandro A. Schäffer & Padma Sheila Rajagopal & Razelle Kurzrock & Eytan Ruppin, 2024. "Outcome differences by sex in oncology clinical trials," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Jiang, Xuan, 2021. "Women in STEM: Ability, preference, and value," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Jiang, Xuan, 2018. "Planting the Seeds for Success: Why Women in STEM Do Not Stick in the Field," MPRA Paper 89650, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Szymon M Drobniak & Malgorzata Lagisz & Yefeng Yang & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2024. "Realism and robustness require increased sample size when studying both sexes," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(4), pages 1-6, April.
    17. Charlotte Douglas & Valdone Maciulyte & Jasmin Zohren & Daniel M. Snell & Shantha K. Mahadevaiah & Obah A. Ojarikre & Peter J. I. Ellis & James M. A. Turner, 2021. "CRISPR-Cas9 effectors facilitate generation of single-sex litters and sex-specific phenotypes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Rebecca K. Rechlin & Tallinn F. L. Splinter & Travis E. Hodges & Arianne Y. Albert & Liisa A. M. Galea, 2022. "An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Gillian L Currie & Helena N Angel-Scott & Lesley Colvin & Fala Cramond & Kaitlyn Hair & Laila Khandoker & Jing Liao & Malcolm Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Rosie Morland & Nicki Sherratt & Robert Stewart, 2019. "Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-34, May.
    20. Lee, Katharine M.N. & Rushovich, Tamara & Gompers, Annika & Boulicault, Marion & Worthington, Steven & Lockhart, Jeffrey W. & Richardson, Sarah S., 2023. "A Gender Hypothesis of sex disparities in adverse drug events," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-58560-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.