Rationale A scoping review was conducted to investigate knowledge gaps in the informatics research literature regarding sex differences in cognitive decline, identifying existing studies and areas where further studies are needed.

Materials and Methods We searched Ovid and other databases for studies on sex differences and cognitive decline, focusing on publications in peer-reviewed informatics journals and conference proceedings from 2000 to 2023. The selected manuscripts were analyzed and summarized through discussion among three reviewers.

Results A total of 13 articles were selected and examined for metadata and attributes analysis. Most studies are conducted in United States (n=5) and European Union (n=4), about a half are published after 2020 (n=6), and most studies are published in Springer and Elsevier. Our attributes-based analysis highlights the different aspects of reported studies such as task, method, dataset and its size, and sex-specific inferences.

Discussion Sex-specific disparities in cognitive decline remain a critical issue in healthcare, yet most informatics research has primarily concentrated on identifying basic sex differences, such as tracking the progression of cognitive decline in men and women. While these studies are valuable, they fall short of addressing the more complex underlying causes of these sex-specific disparities in progression of cognitive decline.

Conclusion There is a significant gap using informatics in understanding how biological, social, and behavioral factors contribute to sex-specific disparities. This limited focus restricts the development of effective intervention strategies for mitigating sex-specific differences in cognitive health outcomes, underscoring the need for more comprehensive research that goes beyond mere identification to find the root cause of these disparities in healthcare.

Maria Vassilaki consulted F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, unrelated to this manuscript; she currently receives has equity ownership in Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Medtronic, and Amgen. Ronald C. Petersen serves as a consultant for Roche, Inc., Eisai, Inc., Genentech, Inc. Eli Lilly, Inc., and Nestle, Inc., served on a DSMB for Genentech, receives royalties from Oxford University Press and UpToDate.

This study was supported by NIH R01 AG068007 and Mayo Eric and Wendy Schmidt AI research and innovation award.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes