i was mulling over these papers in the past week, as i was looking into the under representation of women in clincial trials+studies. which isn’t the best way to put it, as women ARE represented, but not faithfully, aka not to where it reflects the populations the study is looking to benefit [1]. 

Sosinsky et al. brings us this crazy statistic where in psychiatric trials, women are 60% of the patients but 42% of the participants. 

AND i wanted to highlight some company attitudes reflected in the trial investigators as shown in the study by Waltz et. al., who acknowledged the importance of data from female participants, and then said that the competition to have the drugs out first often led to there being not enough data on the drug’s impacts on female reproductive systems to use it.

which leads to a inaccurate data set in the first place, requiring readjustments on the drug information later on bc it wasn’t tested accurately against female metabolic systems… leading to further to delay

book inhaler, journal enthusiast, psychology lover | pfp by artsyRC on x

Oh yeah, Farcaster needs this type of content 🤝