The new paradox of women's health research.
- 1Inter-University Laboratory of Human Movement (LIBM), Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Abstract
Women have long been underrepresented in biomedical research, prompting efforts to make research more sex inclusive. These advances are essential, but they can create an unintended tension when rigorous inclusion is interpreted as requiring extensive hormonal or reproductive characterization, even when such detail is unnecessary for the question being asked. We examine this paradox, in which standards intended to strengthen research on women may inadvertently make some studies involving females harder to pursue. We argue that characterization should match the claim a study is designed to support, and that funders, institutions and journals must provide the resources needed to make such rigor feasible. Methodological progress should ultimately broaden, not narrow, the evidence base needed to improve women's health.
Related
- The "up-or-out" system and early-career faculty mental health: a three-year longitudinal study of the paradox of research performance.
- Artificial intelligence for women’s reproductive health: A scoping review of global diagnostic trends, methodological gaps, and a translational research agenda for low-resource settings
- Mapping methodological approaches in perinatal health and wellbeing research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women: a scoping review protocol
- The Personalization-Privacy Paradox in AI-Enabled Health Care: Managing Trust and Governance Under the European Health Data Space.
- The Strength Training Research Paradox: Are We Studying the Right People?
BibTeX
@article{debarnot2026paradox,
title = {{The new paradox of women's health research.}},
author = {Ursula Debarnot and Alexandre Fouré},
journal = {ELife},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.7554/elife.113335},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42909473},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The new paradox of women's health research.
AU - Ursula Debarnot
AU - Alexandre Fouré
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/23
JO - ELife
DO - 10.7554/elife.113335
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42909473
AB - Women have long been underrepresented in biomedical research, prompting efforts to make research more sex inclusive. These advances are essential, but they can create an unintended tension when rigorous inclusion is interpreted as requiring extensive hormonal or reproductive characterization, even when such detail is unnecessary for the question being asked. We examine this paradox, in which standards intended to strengthen research on women may inadvertently make some studies involving females harder to pursue. We argue that characterization should match the claim a study is designed to support, and that funders, institutions and journals must provide the resources needed to make such rigor feasible. Methodological progress should ultimately broaden, not narrow, the evidence base needed to improve women's health.
SN - 2050-084X
ER -