Higher mortality in men from COVID19 infection-understanding the factors that drive the differences between the biological sexes
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The emergent global pandemic caused by the rapid spread of Severe Acute Respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to increased mortality and negatively impacted day to day activities of humankind within a short period of time. As the data is rapidly emerging from earlier outbreak locations around the world, there are efforts to assimilate this with the knowledge from prior epidemics and find rapid solutions for this. One of the observations and a recurring theme is the disproportionate differences in the incidence of infection and the consequent mortality between males and females. We, therefore, analyzed retrospective datasets from the previous epidemics and the ongoing pandemic in order to address these differences in clinical outcomes. The data shows that even though the infection rates are similar, the odds ratio of male mortality remains high, indicating a divergence in the crosstalk between the three pathogenic human Coronavirus (hCoVs)-the SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and the SARS-CoV-2 and immune effectors in the two sexes. One proximate cause is the sex-specific modulation of the X-linked genes that can influence susceptibility to infection. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings, which can form the basis for developing rational strategies for ending the current and preventing future pandemics.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.19.20062174: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The percentage of male cases was compared to 50% using a one-sample binomial test for proportions. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.19.20062174: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable The percentage of male cases was compared to 50% using a one-sample binomial test for proportions. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
