Cited by 541Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchSex and Gender in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 297 of the 298 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 192 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Sex Differences in Traumatic Brain Injury: What We Know and What We Should Know

Open access

Abstract

There is growing recognition of the problem of male bias in neuroscience research, including in the field of traumatic brain injury (TBI) where fewer women than men are recruited to clinical trials and male rodents have predominantly been used as an experimental injury model. Despite TBI being a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide, sex differences in pathophysiology and recovery are poorly understood, limiting clinical care and successful drug development. Given growing interest in sex as a biological variable affecting injury outcomes and treatment efficacy, there is a clear need to summarize sex differences in TBI. This scoping review presents an overview of current knowledge of sex differences in TBI and a comparison of human and animal studies. We found that overall, human studies report worse outcomes in women than men, whereas animal studies report better outcomes in females than males. However, closer examination shows that multiple factors including injury severity, sample size, and experimental injury model may differentially interact with sex to affect TBI outcomes. Additionally, we explore how sex differences in mitochondrial structure and function might contribute to possible sex differences in TBI outcomes. We propose recommendations for future investigations of sex differences in TBI, which we hope will lead to improved patient management, prognosis, and translation of therapies from bench to bedside.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This scoping review compares human and animal TBI studies by sex and finds that human studies most often report worse outcomes in women, whereas animal studies most often report better outcomes in females. Injury severity, sample size, and experimental model interact with sex, and the authors highlight mitochondrial function and chromosomal/hormonal factors as underexplored mechanisms.

Key findings

  • Among 156 human studies, the largest fraction (47%) reported worse outcomes in women than men; 26% reported better outcomes in women, 18% no sex difference, and about 9% mixed results. Among 43 animal studies, 44% reported females fared better than males, 14% females worse, 28% no sex difference, and 14% mixed results.
  • Injury severity mattered: in human mild-moderate TBI, 60% of studies found women fared worse and only 9% better; in moderate-severe TBI, 34% found women worse and 46% better. In animal studies, 17% of mild TBI studies showed better outcomes in females, versus 55% of moderate-severe TBI studies.
  • Study size mattered in humans: 52% of small studies (0–1000 patients) reported worse outcomes in women, while 67% of large studies (>10,000 patients) reported better outcomes in women.
  • Animal model mattered: 55% of controlled cortical impact (CCI) studies reported better outcomes in females and none showed males doing better; in lateral fluid percussion injury, 40% showed females better and 60% females worse.

Methods

  • Scoping review of PubMed searched without publication-date or language limits, using sex/gender and TBI terms; search generated 601 results in July 2018, plus 15 items from manual cross-referencing.
  • Included original research on human adolescents/adults of reproductive age and animal studies; excluded reviews/meta-analyses, pediatric-only or geriatric-only studies, epidemiology-only human studies, non-TBI injuries, and non-English articles.
  • Human and animal studies were classified into four outcome categories: worse in women/females, better in women/females, no difference, or mixed. Human studies were stratified by injury severity (mild-moderate GCS 9–15; moderate-severe GCS <12; nonstratified) and sample size; animal studies were grouped by injury model and severity.

Limitations

  • The paper states that 37% of reviewed human studies provided no data on exclusions, and only 15% specifically reported extracranial injury status, limiting interpretation of sex differences. It also notes that some animal injury models had small numbers of studies, so model-specific trends should be viewed as preliminary.
  • The paper states that mixed results are common and that outcome-measure selection can affect conclusions; it advocates multiple outcome measures and notes that sex and gender terms are often used interchangeably in the literature.
  • Evident from the text: the review is a descriptive scoping synthesis rather than a meta-analysis, relies on PubMed and English-language articles, and excludes pediatric-only and geriatric-only populations, which may limit generalizability across the lifespan.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/neu.2018.6171

Cites

297 of 297 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 192 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 158 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 114
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 90
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 22
179 of 179
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Across the scientific literature, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably.

    “However, across the scientific literature the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Animal models of TBI can inform the pathophysiology of human TBI.

    “Because therapeutic interventions are targeted toward underlying mechanisms, elucidating the role of sex in TBI pathophysiology is crucial.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The studies included in the review are representative of the literature on sex differences in TBI.

    “All animal studies identified by our search criteria were classified based on post-TBI outcomes (upper panel).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Disease etiology, underlying neuropathology, and cellular mechanisms of recovery differ between sexes.

    “Because disease etiology, underlying neuropathology, and cellular mechanisms of recovery differ between sexes”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The reviewed human and animal studies are sufficiently representative to support conclusions about sex differences in TBI outcomes.

    “This review of the literature in humans and animal models suggests that sex differences in TBI outcomes are likely”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Conflicting percentages for mixed results in animal studies

    Major

    The results section says 14% of animal studies had mixed results and 28% found no sex differences. The discussion instead assigns 28% to mixed results, doubling the stated fraction behind its discussion of mixed findings.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 298 references

1 of the 298 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Taylor A.N., , Tio D.L., , Paydar A., , and Sutton R.L. (2017). Sex differences in thermal, stress and inflammatory responses to minocycline administration in rats with traumatic brain injury. J. Neurotrauma, 35, 630–638.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–541 of 541

Metadata

Authors
Gupte, R. P., Brooks, W. M., Vukas, R. R., Pierce, J. D., & Harris, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
  • University of Kansas (US)
Corresponding author
Harris, Janna L.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2019-10-23
Volume
36
Issue
22
Pages
3063-3091
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W2915478013
Cited by
533
References
298
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 6
FWCI
31.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurotrauma (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002366)
  • National Institute on Aging (R21AG058052, P30AG035982, P30AG072973)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R21NS091920)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, sex differences, women in clinical trials, injury severity, mitochondrial function, sex as a biological variable, sex differences in recovery, translational research
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Animals, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Characteristics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review