Sex-dependent variation in bone adaptation: from degeneration to regeneration
Chen S., Patel J., Katzmeyer T., Pei M.
Narrative Review, published in J Orthop Translat (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- J Orthop Translat (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40476066
- PMCID
- PMC12138372
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jot.2025.04.011
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
While known sex differences in bone health exist, scientific studies on bone degeneration and regeneration frequently disregard sex impact as a variable in outcomes. Evidence has established a higher risk of osteoporosis and increased bone degradation rates in women when compared to men. Accumulating research suggests that this disparity is also present in bone regeneration and repair. However, no comprehensive review highlighting the influence of sex currently exists in this field. This paper aims to review the information presently available on the cellular mechanisms behind skeletal sexual dimorphism specific to hormones and bone's degenerative and regenerative sex differences. This review will discuss the optimization of personalized regenerative therapies accounting for sex. The review emphasizes that sex impact must further be investigated to advance the field of bone regeneration and improve patient outcomes and quality of life. As translational medicine is JOT's focus, authors must highlight the translational potential or clinical significance of their work in both the abstract and the discussion. To this effect, it is required to include a statement following the abstract (included in the abstract word count) under the following heading: "The Translational Potential of this Article". 2. Please re-edit the reference list according to the following guidelines: 1) The las
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.