SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Sex and Gender Differences in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Challenges for Therapeutic Opportunities.

Int J Mol Sci · 2023-03-28

DOI: 10.3390/ijms24076354PMID: 37047320

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The term "neurodegenerative diseases" (NDs) identifies a group of heterogeneous diseases characterized by progressive loss of selectively vulnerable populations of neurons, which progressively deteriorates over time, leading to neuronal dysfunction. Protein aggregation and neuronal loss have been considered the most characteristic hallmarks of NDs, but growing evidence confirms that significant dysregulation of innate immune pathways plays a crucial role as well. NDs vary from multiple sclerosis, in which the autoimmune inflammatory component is predominant, to more "classical" NDs, such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and spinal muscular atrophy. Of interest, many of the clinical differences reported in NDs seem to be closely linked to sex, which may be justified by the significant changes in immune mechanisms between affected females and males. In this review, we examined some of the most studied NDs by looking at their pathogenic and phenotypical features to highlight sex-related discrepancies, if any, with particular interest in the individuals' responses to treatment. We believe that pointing out these differences in clinical practice may help achieve more successful precision and personalized care.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.