Dillan F Villavisanis1,2, Elisa R Berson3, Amanda M Lauer1, Maura K Cosetti4, Katrina M Schrode1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. 3. Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, New York Eye and Ear infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is estimated over 466 million people worldwide have disabling hearing loss, and untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer health outcomes. The influence of sex as a biological variable on hearing loss is not well understood, especially for differences in underlying mechanisms which are typically elucidated through non-clinical research. Although the inclusion of sex as a biological variable in clinical studies has been required since 1993, sex reporting has only been recently mandated in National Institutes of Health funded non-clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the literature on recent non-clinical and clinical research concerning sex-based differences in hearing loss primarily since 1993, and discusses implications for knowledge gaps in the translation from non-clinical to clinical realms. CONCLUSIONS: The disparity between sex-based requirements for non-clinical versus clinical research may inhibit a comprehensive understanding of sex-based mechanistic differences. Such disparities may play a role in understanding and explaining clinically significant sex differences and are likely necessary for developing robust clinical treatment options.
INTRODUCTION: It is estimated over 466 million people worldwide have disabling hearing loss, and untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer health outcomes. The influence of sex as a biological variable on hearing loss is not well understood, especially for differences in underlying mechanisms which are typically elucidated through non-clinical research. Although the inclusion of sex as a biological variable in clinical studies has been required since 1993, sex reporting has only been recently mandated in National Institutes of Health funded non-clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the literature on recent non-clinical and clinical research concerning sex-based differences in hearing loss primarily since 1993, and discusses implications for knowledge gaps in the translation from non-clinical to clinical realms. CONCLUSIONS: The disparity between sex-based requirements for non-clinical versus clinical research may inhibit a comprehensive understanding of sex-based mechanistic differences. Such disparities may play a role in understanding and explaining clinically significant sex differences and are likely necessary for developing robust clinical treatment options.
Authors: P J Blamey; J Z Sarant; L E Paatsch; J G Barry; C P Bow; R J Wales; M Wright; C Psarros; K Rattigan; R Tooher Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Katharine Price; Xiaoxia Zhu; Patricia F Guimaraes; Olga N Vasilyeva; Robert D Frisina Journal: Hear Res Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Haiyan Shen; Baoping Zhang; June-Ho Shin; Debin Lei; Yafei Du; Xiang Gao; Qiuju Wang; Kevin K Ohlemiller; Jay Piccirillo; Jianxin Bao Journal: Hear Res Date: 2006-12-31 Impact factor: 3.208
Authors: Franco Scinicariello; Jennifer Przybyla; Yulia Carroll; John Eichwald; John Decker; Patrick N Breysse Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Els Van Eyken; Lut Van Laer; Erik Fransen; Vedat Topsakal; Jan-Jaap Hendrickx; Kelly Demeester; Paul Van de Heyning; Elina Mäki-Torkko; Samuli Hannula; Martti Sorri; Mona Jensen; Agnete Parving; Michael Bille; Manuela Baur; Markus Pfister; Amanda Bonaconsa; Manuela Mazzoli; Eva Orzan; Angeles Espeso; Dafydd Stephens; Katia Verbruggen; Joke Huyghe; Ingeborg Dhooge; Patrick Huygen; Hannie Kremer; Cor Cremers; Sylvia Kunst; Mina Manninen; Ilmari Pyykkö; Elzbieta Rajkowska; Malgorzata Pawelczyk; Mariola Sliwinska-Kowalska; Michael Steffens; Thomas Wienker; Guy Van Camp Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Tyler R Will; Stephanie B Proaño; Anly M Thomas; Lindsey M Kunz; Kelly C Thompson; Laura A Ginnari; Clay H Jones; Sarah-Catherine Lucas; Elizabeth M Reavis; David M Dorris; John Meitzen Journal: eNeuro Date: 2017-11-09
Authors: Kali Burke; Laurel A Screven; Anastasiya Kobrina; Payton E Charlton; Katrina Schrode; Dillan F Villavisanis; Micheal L Dent; Amanda M Lauer Journal: eNeuro Date: 2022-06-10
Authors: Anastasiya Kobrina; Katrina M Schrode; Laurel A Screven; Hamad Javaid; Madison M Weinberg; Garrett Brown; Ryleigh Board; Dillan F Villavisanis; Micheal L Dent; Amanda M Lauer Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Benjamin Shuster; Ryan Casserly; Erika Lipford; Rafal Olszewski; Béatrice Milon; Shaun Viechweg; Kanisa Davidson; Jennifer Enoch; Mark McMurray; Mark A Rutherford; Kevin K Ohlemiller; Michael Hoa; Didier A Depireux; Jessica A Mong; Ronna Hertzano Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Hiroshi Miyake; Takehiro Michikawa; Satsue Nagahama; Keiko Asakura; Yuji Nishiwaki Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 4.614