SESGO DE SEXO EN LA INVESTIGACIÓN CON ANIMALES: IMPLICACIONES BIOÉTICAS, CIENTÍFICAS Y PARA LA EQUIDAD EN SALUD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66104/tqq2sn41Palabras clave:
Bioética, Equidad en salud, Investigación preclínica, Principios de las 3R, Sesgo de sexoResumen
La investigación preclínica presenta un sesgo de sexo sistemático, caracterizado por la predominancia de animales machos, la omisión del sexo como variable biológica y la escasa utilización de análisis estratificados. Este sesgo compromete la validez científica, la reproducibilidad y la traslación clínica de los hallazgos, además de profundizar las desigualdades en salud. Esta revisión integradora tuvo como objetivo identificar las implicaciones bioéticas del sesgo de sexo en la investigación con animales, sintetizando las prácticas metodológicas y sus consecuencias para la aplicabilidad de los resultados y la equidad en salud. La búsqueda se realizó en PubMed, ScienceDirect, SciELO y Google Académico, incluyendo estudios publicados entre 2010 y 2025 en inglés y portugués. Los datos se organizaron en tres ejes analíticos: abordaje metodológico del sexo en los diseños experimentales; implicaciones éticas a la luz de los principios de las 3R; e impactos en la calidad y generalización de los resultados. Los hallazgos evidencian que el sesgo masculino es endémico en áreas como neurociencia, cardiología, cirugía y parasitología, manifestándose tanto en el uso exclusivo de machos como en la omisión del sexo en los reportes. Incluso cuando se incluyen ambos sexos, persisten limitaciones analíticas, como la agrupación de datos sin pruebas de interacción. La exclusión de hembras, históricamente justificada por la variabilidad del ciclo estral, ha sido refutada. Se concluye que el sesgo de sexo constituye un problema bioético que exige cambios culturales, alfabetización estadística y una mayor actuación de los comités de ética para garantizar la validez científica y la equidad en salud.
Descargas
Referencias
ALLEGRA, S. et al. Evaluation of sex differences in preclinical pharmacology research: how far is left to go?. Pharmaceuticals, v. 16, n. 6, p. 786, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/16/6/786 . Acesso em: 27 jan. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16060786
BARLEK, M. H. et al. The persistence of sex bias in high-impact clinical research. Journal of Surgical Research, v. 278, p. 364-374, 2022. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.077 . Acesso em: 27 jan. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.077
BECEGATO, M.; SILVA, R. H. Object recognition tasks in rats: does sex matter?. Frontiers In Behavioral Neuroscience, [S.L.], v. 16, p. 1-11, 12 ago. 2022. Frontiers Media SA. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.970452 . Acesso em: 16 dez. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.970452
BEERY, A. K.; ZUCKER, I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, [S.L.], v. 35, n. 3, p. 565-572, jan. 2011. Elsevier BV. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002 . Acesso em: 16 dez. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002
COIRO, P.; POLLAK, D. D. Sex and gender bias in the experimental neurosciences: the case of the maternal immune activation model. Translational psychiatry, v. 9, n. 1, p. 90, 2019. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0423-8 . Acesso em: 09 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0423-8
ELIOT, L.; RICHARDSON, S. S. Sex in context: limitations of animal studies for addressing human sex/gender neurobehavioral health disparities. Journal of Neuroscience, v. 36, n. 47, p. 11823-11830, 2016. Disponível em: https://www.jneurosci.org/content/36/47/11823 . Acesso em: 30 jan. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1391-16.2016
FENWICK, N.; GRIFFIN, G.; GAUTHIER, C. The welfare of animals used in science: How the “Three Rs” ethic guides improvements. The Canadian veterinary journal, v. 50, n. 5, p. 523, 2009. Disponível em: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2671878/ . Acesso em: 30 jan. 2026.
FISCHER, M. L.; RODRIGUES, G. S. Planejamento e divulgação da pesquisa com animais como parâmetro de integridade. Revista Bioética, v. 26, n. 4, p. 543-555, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422018264273 . Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422018264273
FLÓREZ-VARGAS, O. et al. Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models. Elife, v. 5, p. e13615, 2016. Disponível em: https://elifesciences.org/articles/13615 . Acesso em: 09 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13615
GUALTIEROTTI, R. Bridging the gap: Time to integrate sex and gender differences into research and clinical practice for improved health outcomes. European Journal of Internal Medicine, v. 134, p. 9-16, 2025. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2025.01.030 . Acesso em: 27 jan. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2025.01.030
KARP, N. A. et al. The Sex Inclusive Research Framework to address sex bias in preclinical research proposals. Nature Communications, v. 16, n. 1, p. 3763, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58560-5 . Acesso em: 16 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58560-5
KARP, N. A. Navigating the paradigm shift of sex inclusive preclinical research and lessons learnt. Communications Biology, v. 8, n. 1, p. 681, 2025. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08118-4 . Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-025-08118-4
KARP, N. A.; REAVEY, N. Sex bias in preclinical research and an exploration of how to change the status quo. British journal of pharmacology, v. 176, n. 21, p. 4107-4118, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14539 . Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14539
MAZURE, C. M. Our evolving science: studying the influence of sex in preclinical research. Biology of sex Differences, v. 7, n. 1, p. 15, 2016. Disponível em: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13293-016-0068-8 . Acesso em: 30 jan. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-016-0068-8
MERCEL, A. et al. Sex bias persists in surgical research: a 5-year follow-up study. Surgery, v. 170, n. 2, p. 354-361, 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.02.041 . Acesso em: 09 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.02.041
NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE REPLACEMENT REFINEMENT AND REDUCTION OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH - NC3RS (Reino Unido). Sex-inclusive research framework: challenging misconceptions and fostering change. Londres, 10 jul. 2024. Disponível em: https://nc3rs.org.uk/news/sex-inclusive-research-framework-challenging-misconceptions-and-fostering-change . Acesso em: 14 mar. 2026.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH). Notice Number NOT-OD-15-102: Consideration of sex as a biological variable in NIH-funded research. Bethesda: NIH, 2015. Disponível em: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-15-102.html . Acesso em: 16 dez. 2025.
NUNAMAKER, E. A.; TURNER, P. V. Unmasking the adverse impacts of sex bias on science and research animal welfare. Animals, v. 13, n. 17, p. 2792, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/17/2792 . Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13172792
PAGE, M. J. et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, v. 372, n. 160, 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
PLEVKOVA, J. et al. Various aspects of sex and gender bias in biomedical research. Physiological research, v. 69, n. Suppl 3, p. S367, 2020. Disponível em: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8603716/ . Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026.
POULIN, R. et al. Battle of the sexes: analysis of sex bias in host use and reporting practices in parasitological experiments. International journal for parasitology, v. 53, n. 7, p. 381-389, 2023. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2023.03.002 . Acesso em: 25 fev. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2023.03.002
RAMIREZ, F. D. et al. Sex bias is increasingly prevalent in preclinical cardiovascular research: implications for translational medicine and health equity for women: a systematic assessment of leading cardiovascular journals over a 10-year period. Circulation, v. 135, n. 6, p. 625-626, 2017. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026668 . Acesso em: 09 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026668
ROSANELI, C. F.; FISCHER, M. L. A revisão integrativa como ferramenta para educação profissional e tecnológica em Bioética. Revista Brasileira da Educação Profissional e Tecnológica, v. 2, n. 24, p. e17809-e17809, 2024. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.15628/rbept.2024.17809 . Acesso em: 16 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15628/rbept.2024.17809
RUSSELL, W.; BURCH, L. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen, 1959.
SOUSA, M. N. A.; BEZERRA, A. L. D.; EGYPTO, I. A. S. Trilhando o caminho do conhecimento: o método de revisão integrativa para análise e síntese da literatura científica. Observatorio de la economía latinoamericana, v. 21, n. 10, p. 18448-18483, 2023. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.55905/oelv21n10-212 . Acesso em: 16 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55905/oelv21n10-212
TANNENBAUM, J.; BENNETT, B. T. Russell and Burch's 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. Journal of the American association for laboratory animal science, v. 54, n. 2, p. 120-132, 2015. Disponível em: https://aalas.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/72010024/54/2/article-p120.xml . Acesso em: 16 mar. 2026.
TIEU, P. et al. Sex Bias in Animal Models of Thrombosis Research. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, v. 37, n. 2, p. e16, 2021. Disponível em: https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(20)30119-7/abstract . Acesso em: 25 fev. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.02.046
WARREN, A.; GARRETT, K.; FRAME, L. A. Disparities in women’s health and clinical considerations from a translational science perspective: A narrative review and framework for future directions. Women's Health, v. 21, p. 17455057251399009, 2025. Disponível em: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17455057251399009 . Acesso em: 27 jan. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057251399009
WHEELER, J. J. et al. A systematic review of animal models and sex as a variable in itch research. Itch, v. 5, n. 3, p. e40, 2020. Disponível em: https://journals.lww.com/itch/fulltext/2020/07010/A_systematic_review_of_animal_models_and_sex_as_a.5.aspx?context=LatestArticles . Acesso em: 09 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/itx.0000000000000040
WHITEHEAD, M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. International Journal of Health Services, Westport, v. 22, n. 3, p. 429-445, 1992. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.2190/986L-LHQ6-2VTE-YRRN. Acesso em: 09 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/986L-LHQ6-2VTE-YRRN
WILL, T. R. et al. Problems and progress regarding sex bias and omission in neuroscience research. eneuro, v. 4, n. 6, 2017. Disponível em: https://www.eneuro.org/content/4/6/ENEURO.0278-17.2017.short . Acesso em: 09 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0278-17.2017
YOON, D. Y. et al. Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research. Surgery, v. 156, n. 3, p. 508-516, 2014. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039606014004255 . Acesso em: 16 mar. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.07.001
ZAKINIAEIZ, Y. et al. Balance of the sexes: addressing sex differences in preclinical research. The Yale journal of biology and medicine, v. 89, n. 2, p. 255, 2016. Disponível em: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4918870/ . Acesso em: 27 jan. 2026.
ZUCKER, I.; BEERY, A. K. Males still dominate animal studies. Nature, [S.L.], v. 465, n. 7299, p. 690-690, 9 jun. 2010. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1038/465690a . Acesso em: 16 dez. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/465690a
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 RSV
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
