↓ Skip to main content

Sex-Divergent Clinical Outcomes and Precision Medicine: An Important New Role for Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Sex-Divergent Clinical Outcomes and Precision Medicine: An Important New Role for Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ignacio Segarra, Pilar Modamio, Cecilia Fernández, Eduardo L Mariño

Abstract

The efforts toward individualized medicine have constantly increased in an attempt to improve treatment options. These efforts have led to the development of small molecules which target specific molecular pathways involved in cancer progression. We have reviewed preclinical studies of sunitinib that incorporate sex as a covariate to explore possible sex-based differences in pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions (DDI) to attempt a relationship with published clinical outputs. We observed that covariate sex is lacking in most clinical outcome reports and suggest a series of ethic-based proposals to improve research activities and identify relevant different sex outcomes. We propose a deeper integration of preclinical, clinical, and translational research addressing statistical and clinical significance jointly; to embed specific sex-divergent endpoints to evaluate possible gender differences objectively during all stages of research; to pay greater attention to sex-divergent outcomes in polypharmacy scenarios, DDI and bioequivalence studies; the clear reporting of preclinical and clinical findings regarding sex-divergent outcomes; as well as to encourage the active role of scientists and the pharmaceutical industry to foster a new scientific culture through their research programs, practice, and participation in editorial boards and Institutional Ethics Review Boards (IRBs) and Research Ethics Committees (RECs). We establish the IRB/REC as the centerpiece for the implementation of these proposals. We suggest the expansion of its competence to follow up clinical trials to ensure that sex differences are addressed and recognized; to engage in data monitoring committees to improve clinical research cooperation and ethically address those potential clinical outcome differences between male and female patients to analyze their social and clinical implications in research and healthcare policies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 14 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 16 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,327,614
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#3,830
of 16,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,568
of 314,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#71
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 314,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.