Escribir un comentario

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction, specifically the abstract, explains the objective by stating that the paper aims to address how persistent disparities in women’s health data hinder the advancement of global health equality. It focuses on the fact that women are underrepresented or poorly characterized in many health datasets and that this lack of inclusive data leads to diagnostic delays, ineffective treatments, and policies that fail to reflect women's realities. The objective is ultimately presented as the need to address these gaps because improving women's health data is crucial for achieving global health equality and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The research relies on synthesizing secondary sources and publicly available data to address the objective.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The main conclusions that the exclusion of women from medical research sustains systemic health disparities and that closing the data gap is essential for health equity and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are supported by the following: a. Evidence of Data Gaps and Exclusion: Women are underrepresented or poorly characterized in many health datasets, and systemic barriers obstruct comprehensive gender data collection. Historically, biomedical research defaulted to male subjects, leading to poor representation of women in clinical trials and epidemiological research. Only a small fraction of global health research funding is directed toward women’s health b. Consequences of Data Gaps (Disparities): The lack of inclusive data leads to diagnostic delays, ineffective treatments, and policies that fail to reflect women’s realities and examples are: Women are less likely to be diagnosed or receive appropriate treatment for cardiovascular disease, Women experience adverse drug reactions twice as often as men, partly because many drugs were approved based solely on male physiology and Conditions disproportionately affecting women, like autoimmune disorders (78% of cases) and menopause, remain underfunded and under-researched

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

The authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings clearly and concisely. They clearly explain that the persistent lack of inclusive women's health data sustains systemic health disparities and interpret this as a barrier to global health equality and a failure to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Interpretations are supported by specific examples detailing bias and exclusion, root cause, and consequences.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

They did a deep critical analysis that examined how disparities in women's health data hinder global health equality. By synthesizing secondary sources, the paper highlights systemic issues like the underrepresentation of women in health datasets and clinical trials, and the resulting negative consequences such as diagnostic delays and ineffective treatments.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

The preprint provides a critical analysis of women's health data gaps, which is a crucial factor for global health equity. So yes, I will recommend it.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, as it is

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.