The Gender Data Gap: Why Electrochemical Diagnostics Risks Failing Half Its Users
A recent UK analysis revealed that male-only medical device clinical trials outnumbered female-only trials by 67% [1], whilst in the US, female participants comprised only 41% of clinical trial enrolees between 2016 and 2019 [2]. This imbalance creates not only ethical concerns but also dangerous technical blind spots. Meanwhile, the global point‑of‑care diagnostics market is projected to reach £68.5 billion by 2030 [3], driven largely by home‑based electrochemical testing. Women, who make roughly 80% of household healthcare decisions [4], are a key demographic in the uptake of such technologies, as demonstrated by the development of female‑focused devices like the home‑based electrochemical rapid sensor (HERS) for bacterial vaginosis detection [5]. The electrochemical diagnostics industry cannot afford to be blind to half its user base.
Engineering on a Faulty Foundation
The historical underrepresentation of women in clinical trials has created an unexamined assumption in electrochemical diagnostics R&D: that male physiology provides an adequate baseline for universal device performance [6,7]. Consequently, from voltammetric immunosensors to impedimetric biomarker detection, our industry has, perhaps inadvertently, been designed without adequately considering the entire demographic diversity of the population, whilst commercialising to everyone.
This isn't merely a clinical oversight; it's a significant technical and commercial liability with measurable consequences.
As someone who has been involved in the research and development of electrochemical biosensors across cardiac biomarkers, antibiotics and therapeutic drug monitoring, I've observed how well-documented physiological differences between sexes create performance variations that most validation protocols never anticipate. These variations don't emerge during post-market surveillance; they originate at the electrode-solution interface and propagate through entire system architectures.
Just as pharmaceutical research has historically often underrepresented women, leading to dangerous dosing errors due to different drug metabolism [6,7], electrochemical diagnostics risks repeating these mistakes. With women representing the majority of chronic disease patients and driving most household healthcare decisions [4,8], gender-blind biosensor development represents both poor science and poor business strategy.
1. Gender as an Electrochemical Variable
This analysis isn't political commentary—it's sensor physics. The human body operates as a complex electrochemical system where biological sex introduces critical variables affecting device performance [9]. Hormonal cycles in pre-menopausal women create periodic shifts in ionic strength, plasma viscosity, and pH buffering capacity [10,11]. These fluctuations significantly alter the microenvironment surrounding biosensors.
These physiological changes directly impact fundamental electrochemical phenomena:
Double-layer formation at the electrode-solution interface remains highly sensitive to ionic concentration and composition [12]. Hormonal fluctuations alter the capacitance and structure of the double-layer, potentially impacting electron transfer efficiency.
Protein adsorption kinetics vary with hormone-modulated protein profiles in biological samples [14]. Studies demonstrate that protein adsorption patterns differ significantly based on source composition [15], suggesting that sex-specific protein profiles will create different fouling behaviours on sensor surfaces.
Electrode kinetics governing electron transfer reactions depend on pH, temperature, and interfering species, all influenced by gendered physiological differences [16]. These factors modify electron transfer coefficients and overall reaction kinetics, potentially reflected in techniques like EIS, cyclic voltammetry, and chronoamperometry.
The practical consequence? Devices calibrated predominantly on male physiology may underperform, misclassify, or drift faster in female users. This becomes critical in applications requiring high sensitivity and temporal stability, continuous glucose monitoring, cortisol tracking, or acute cardiac biomarker detection.
Direct studies on gender-specific biosensor performance are limited. However, documented fluctuations in biomarker levels and plasma composition across menstrual cycles [17] strongly imply that sensors calibrated without considering these variations could perform differently for male and female users. For instance, the decline in magnesium concentrations during the menstrual cycle [17] is noteworthy. Given that magnesium ions stabilise aptamer structure and binding affinity – vital for electrochemical aptamer-based (EAB) biosensors – these fluctuations could directly impact sensor sensitivity and accuracy, causing performance discrepancies if unaddressed.
2. Surface Chemistry Challenges
The interaction between biosensor surface chemistry and biological matrices determines measurement stability and accuracy. Surface fouling, the undesirable accumulation of biomolecules on electrodes, doesn't proceed uniformly across sexes.
Common surface treatments like BSA blocking or MCH functionalisation on self-assembled monolayers interact with complex, hormone-modulated protein profiles differently [13]. Women's distinct metabolic profiles can alter fouling layer composition, impacting:
Signal-to-noise ratios suffer when differently composed fouling layers increase background noise whilst reducing analyte-specific signals in CV and SWV measurements [18].
Capacitive coupling in impedimetric sensors changes as fouling layer dielectric properties shift, leading to baseline impedance variations and reduced detection accuracy [16].
Amperometric baseline stability becomes compromised when sex-specific biological matrices cause differential fouling patterns, requiring more frequent recalibration or producing erroneous readings [19].
Whilst specific studies directly linking hormone-modulated protein profiles to BSA-blocked or MCH-functionalised biosensor performance represent an area requiring further investigation, established principles of biofouling and protein-surface interactions strongly indicate quantifiable impacts on sensor performance and stability.
Inclusive sensor design requires understanding the statistical distribution of biological variability across sexes and ensuring electrode chemistries remain robust across that entire range, moving beyond "one-size-fits-all" approaches toward designs accommodating human physiological diversity.
3. Validation Framework Shortcomings
International standards like ISO 13485 and ISO 14971 provide structured approaches to device development and risk management, yet their application often inadvertently perpetuates gender bias. Few biosensor companies rigorously stratify design verification or failure mode analysis by sex.
This oversight means devices might meet general performance specifications whilst latent gender-specific failure modes remain invisible until post-market deployment, by which point regulatory scrutiny, costly recalls, and reputational damage become inevitable.
The problem isn't the standards themselves but their interpretation. "Representative" study populations frequently fail to reflect intended user demographics, particularly regarding sex and gender [1,2]. This creates:
Undetected performance discrepancies where insufficient female representation masks issues like electrolyte sensor underperformance in post-menopausal women due to altered hormonal regulation of ion channels [20].
Inaccurate diagnostic thresholds emerge when misclassification rates aren't identified during validation studies. For example, point-of-care cardiac troponin detection under cyclical inflammatory conditions—if not properly validated across diverse populations—could lead to missed diagnoses in women [21].
Increased post-market risk develops when devices deploy broadly without adequate sex-specific validation, creating unforeseen adverse events in significant user populations, as observed in pharmaceuticals, where market withdrawals disproportionately affected women due to inadequate initial testing [7].
Addressing this requires applying existing standards more rigorously and inclusively: designing validation studies with explicit gender-stratified cohorts, analysing data for sex-specific differences, and proactively identifying risks that may disproportionately affect one sex. The UK's MESSAGE project actively works to establish new gold standards for integrating sex and gender into health research [22].
4. Commercial Imperative
Inclusive design represents a market access enabler and competitive differentiator rather than a cost centre. Women drive the majority of household healthcare purchasing decisions [4] and represent significant proportions of chronic disease populations [3]. Devices demonstrably validated across gendered physiology outperform in adoption, longevity, and trust, directly translating to increased market share and brand loyalty.
Regulatory landscapes are evolving. The EU's Medical Device Regulation emphasises clinical evidence reflecting intended user populations, implicitly demanding greater diversity. Canada leads in integrating sex and gender-based analysis into health research and policy. The UK mirrors this trajectory through the NIHR's mandatory research inclusion requirements from 2024 and the Women's Health Strategy for England (2022), which mandates healthcare professional training on women's health. The MHRA's enhanced medical device regulations, effective June 2025, will align with EU MDR standards, reinforcing commercial imperatives for gender-inclusive validation.
Early movers in gender-inclusive validation will enjoy smoother regulatory approvals, fewer field corrections, and significant reputational differentiation. Companies prioritising this approach gain first-mover advantages whilst building reputations for scientific integrity and patient-centric innovation, safeguarding against future regulatory hurdles and potential litigation from unaddressed gender-specific device failures.
5. Leadership Architecture
Addressing this systematic challenge demands proactive leadership from senior electrochemists and diagnostic product leads. They must audit development processes with gender inclusion as a core technical criterion:
R&D integration means considering sex-specific biological variability from conceptualisation, influencing material selection, sensor geometry, and detection principles. If biomarker concentrations fluctuate with menstrual cycles, sensor dynamic ranges and sampling frequencies must accommodate this.
Preclinical testing requires modelling biointerface responses using gender-diverse matrices, employing in vitro and in vivo models reflecting male and female biological environments with different hormonal profiles, protein compositions, and tissue characteristics [23].
Clinical trial enforcement demands balanced enrolment and stratified statistical analysis. Beyond including women, trials need sufficient numbers to detect sex-specific differences and separate outcome analyses to identify efficacy or safety disparities [24].
Post-market monitoring involves tracking sex-specific performance metrics in surveillance reports, actively analysing real-world performance data, adverse events, and user feedback disaggregated by sex to identify emerging gender-specific issues promptly.
This represents a fundamental shift in engineering culture toward resilience, realism, and reliability, acknowledging human biological diversity and designing effective diagnostics for that diversity.
Innovation Through Inclusion
Gender-inclusive biosensor design isn't about fairness—it's about building devices that work reliably in the real world. Addressing the gender data gap represents a technical imperative, commercial strategy, and ethical responsibility simultaneously.
We need leadership that anticipates user diversity rather than reacting to failure reports. The next generation of diagnostics won't just measure accurately—they'll measure equitably, ensuring technological advancements benefit everyone regardless of biological sex.
This strategic thinking distinguishes electrochemical leaders from technicians. Leaders see whole systems, not just electrode reactions. They understand that robust engineering requires designing for human diversity from the outset, not retrofitting solutions after market failures emerge.
The companies that recognise this imperative today will define tomorrow's diagnostic landscape—building devices that work for everyone, everywhere, every time.
What's your experience with gender considerations in electrochemical diagnostics? Have you encountered performance variations that might be explained by user demographics? I'd love to hear from fellow electrochemists, diagnostic developers, and healthcare innovators about their observations and approaches.
#ElectrochemicalDiagnostics #BiosensorDesign #WomensHealth #MedicalDevices #InclusiveDesign #HealthTech #DiagnosticsInnovation #GenderEquity #PointOfCare #MHRA #Electrochemistry #MedTech #ClinicalTrials #RegulatoryCompliance #HealthcareInnovation
References
[1] The Guardian (2025, May 7). 'Concerning' lack of female-only medical trials in UK, say health experts.
[2] Sosinsky, A. Z., et al. (2022). Enrollment of female participants in United States drug and device phase 1–3 clinical trials between 2016 and 2019. Contemporary Clinical Trials 115 (2022): 106718.
[3] Grand View Research. (2024). Point Of Care Diagnostics Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Infectious Diseases, Glucose Testing, Cardiac Markers), By End Use (Clinics, Home, Hospitals), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2025 – 2030.
[4] Matoff-Stepp, S. et al. Women as health care decision-makers: implications for health care coverage in the United States. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved 25.4 (2014): 1507-1513.
[5] Banks, M. et al. Home-Based Electrochemical Rapid Sensor (HERS): A diagnostic tool for bacterial vaginosis." Sensors 23, no. 4 (2023): 1891.
[6] Zucker, I., & Prendergast, B. J. Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women. Biology of Sex Differences, 11, 32 (2020).
[7] White, Jamie, et al. The integration of sex and gender considerations into biomedical research: lessons from international funding agencies. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 106.10 (2021): 3034-3048.
[8] Oliver Wyman. (2019). Women in Healthcare Leadership 2019 Report.
[9] Raberin, Antoine, et al. Sex-related differences in endothelial function and blood viscosity in the elderly population. Frontiers in Physiology 14 (2023): 1151088.
[10] Ye, Cui, et al. "A wearable aptamer nanobiosensor for non-invasive female hormone monitoring." Nature nanotechnology 19.3 (2024): 330-337.
[11] Nyein, Hnin Yin Yin, et al. A wearable patch for continuous analysis of thermoregulatory sweat at rest. Nature Communications 12.1 (2021): 1823.
[12] Bard, A. J., & Faulkner, L. R. (2001). Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
[13] Vashist, S. K. (2017). Handbook of Immunoassay Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications. Academic Press.
[14] Norde, Willem. Protein adsorption at solid surfaces: A thermodynamic approach. Pure and applied chemistry 66.3 (1994): 491-496. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 61(1), 1-9.
[15] Compton, R. G., & Banks, C. E. (2011). Understanding Voltammetry (2nd ed.). Imperial College Press.
[16] Kajantie, Eero, and David IW Phillips. "The effects of sex and hormonal status on the physiological response to acute psychosocial stress." Psychoneuroendocrinology 31.2 (2006): 151-178.
[17] Aguree, Sixtus, et al. "Menstrual cycle-associated changes in micronutrient biomarkers concentration: A prospective cohort study." Journal of the American Nutrition Association 42.4 (2023): 339-348.
[18] Pohanka, M, Skládal, P. Electrochemical biosensors--principles and applications. Journal of Applied Biomedicine 6.2 (2008).
[19] Rusling, J. F., et al. (2010). Amperometric Biosensors: Principles and Applications. In Electrochemical Biosensors (pp. 1-28). Springer.
[20] Regitz-Zagrosek, Vera, ed. Sex and gender differences in pharmacology. Vol. 214. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[21] de Bakker, Marie, et al. Sex differences in cardiac troponin trajectories over the life course. Circulation 147.24 (2023): 1798-1808.
[22] The MESSAGE Project. (2024, December 12). Advancing sex and gender equity in health research: A roundup of the MESSAGE project's achievements.
[23] Shansky, Rebecca M., and Catherine S. Woolley. "Considering sex as a biological variable will be valuable for neuroscience research." Journal of Neuroscience 36.47 (2016): 11817-11822.
[24] Camidge, D. Ross, et al. Race and ethnicity representation in clinical trials: findings from a literature review of Phase I oncology trials. Future Oncology 17.24 (2021): 3271-3280.