Study confirms there's no innate difference in aptitude between boys and girls in math
Classroom teaching may be driving a gender gap in math performance, and the effect starts from the moment children begin school, a new study finds.
The study, published July 11 in the journal Nature, included data on the math skills of more than 2.5 million first-grade children in France. It revealed that, while girls and boys started school with a similar level of math skills, within four months, boys performed significantly better than girls. That gap quadrupled in size by the end of the first year of formal education.
Gender gaps in math performance have been documented the world over, and the origin of this disparity has long been blamed on supposedly inherent differences between the genders — "boys are better at math" and "girls are better at language" — that are actually just stereotypes without scientific backing.
But the new study — and previous studies conducted in the U.S. — throw a wrench in those ideas, and instead suggest that something about formal math education spurs the gap to form.
"I was very surprised, not by the fact that there was a gender gap, but that it emerges at the time when formal math instruction in school begins," study coauthor Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, told Live Science.
Formal education widens gaps
The new study leveraged an initiative by the French Ministry of Education to boost national math standards, which was launched after several years of disappointing performances in international assessments and uncovered the disturbing extent of the math skills gender gap in the country.
Related: Is there really a difference between male and female brains? Emerging science is revealing the answer.
With the aid of cognitive scientists and educators, the French government implemented a universal program of testing for all French children to help teachers better understand the needs of each class and inform updated national standards. Since 2018, every child's math and language skills have been assessed upon entry into first grade, the first mandatory year of schooling in France. They were tested again after four months of formal education and then after one complete year of learning.
These tests revealed no notable differences between girls' and boys' mathematical ability when starting school. However, within four months, a sizable gap opened up between them, placing boys ahead, and that gap only grew as schooling progressed, suggesting that classroom activities had created the disparity, the study authors proposed.
Spelke and her team's analysis covered four national cohorts whose data were collected between 2018 and 2022, and included demographic data to probe the role of external social factors — such as family structure and socioeconomic status (SES) — on school performance. But they found that the emergence of the math gender gap was universal and transcended every parameter investigated: regardless of SES, family structure or type of school, on average, boys performed substantially better in the third assessment than did girls.
This bolstered the hypothesis that an aspect of the schooling itself was to blame. And that idea was further supported by data from the cohort impacted by COVID-related school closures, Spelke added.
"When schools were closed during the pandemic, the gender gap got narrower and then they reopened and it got bigger again," she said. "So there are lots of reasons to think that the gender gap is linked in some way that we don't understand to the onset and progress of formal math instruction."
Causes of the math performance gap
For Jenefer Golding, a pedagogy specialist at University College London who was not involved in the study, the research raises worrying questions about attitudes or behaviors in the classroom that could be creating this disparity.
"Gendered patterns are widespread but they're not inevitable," Golding told Live Science. "It's about equity of opportunity. We need to be quite sure that we're not putting avoidable obstacles in the way of young people who might thrive in these fields." However, separating these educational factors from possible social or biological contributors remains a complex issue, she said.
As a purely observational study, the research does not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about why this gender gap becomes so pronounced upon starting school. But the alarming findings are already prompting discussion among educational experts.
Educational analyst Sabine Meinck of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement drew on her own research, noting that "our data suggest early gendered patterns in parental engagement, [so] gender stereotypes may begin to take root through early childhood play."
RELATED STORIES
—'Let's just study males and keep it simple': How excluding female animals from research held neuroscience back, and could do so again
—When was math invented?
—Parents who have this gene may be more likely to have a girl
For example, "parents report engaging girls significantly more in early literacy activities, while boys are more often involved with building blocks and construction toys," she told Live Science in an email. That may be laying a foundation for how kids engage with reading and math learning in school. These differences in early childhood play have previously correlated with differing levels of scholastic achievement down the line.
The next step requires more research in classrooms, Spelke said, where researchers should gather data to develop interventions that could be useful to students, then test them. "And when we find that something is working, then it can be implemented across the board."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WIRED
15 minutes ago
- WIRED
Einstein Showed That Time Is Relative. But … Why Is It?
Jul 18, 2025 7:00 AM The mind-bending concept of time dilation results from a seemingly harmless assumption—that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Video:So, you're driving a car at half the speed of light. (Both hands on the wheel, please.) You turn on the headlights. How fast would you see this light traveling? What about a person standing by the road? Would they see the light beam moving at 1.5 times the speed of light? But that's impossible, right? Nothing is faster than light. Yes, it seems tricky. The problem is, our ideas about the world are based on our experiences, and we don't have much experience going that fast. I mean, the speed of light is 3 x 108 meters per second, a number we represent with the letter c. That's 670 million miles per hour, friend, and things start to get weird at extreme speeds. Illustration: Rhett Allain It turns out that both the driver and the person on the road would measure the light as traveling at the same speed, c. The motion of the light source (the car) and the relative motion of the observers make no difference. Albert Einstein predicted this in 1905, and it's one of the two main postulates behind his theory of special relativity. Oh, it doesn't sound so 'special' to you? Well, what he then showed is that if the speed of light is a universal constant, then time is relative . The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. The clock on a hyper-speed spaceship would literally tick slower, and if you were in that ship, you would age more slowly than your friends back home. That's called time dilation. A Commonsense Example The idea that everyone sees light traveling at the same speed seems like common sense. But let's look at a more familiar situation, and you'll see that it's not how things usually work. Say you're driving at 10 meters per second, and someone in the car takes a tennis ball and throws it forward with a speed of 20 m/s. A bystander who happens to have a radar gun measures the speed of the ball. What reading do they get ? Illustration: Rhett Allain Nope, NOT 20 m/s. To them the ball is moving at 30 m/s (i.e., 10 + 20). So much for common sense. The difference arises from the fact that they are measuring from different 'reference frames,' one moving, the other stationary. It's all good, though; everyone agrees on the outcome. If the ball hits the person, the miscreants and the bystander would calculate the same time of impact. Yes, the people in the car see the ball moving at a slower speed, but they also see the bystander moving toward them (from their perspective), so it works out the same in the end. This is the other main postulate of special relativity: The physics are the same for all reference frames—or to be specific, for all 'inertial,' or non-accelerating, frames. Observers can be moving at different velocities, but those velocities have to be constant. Anyway, now maybe you can see why it's actually quite bizarre that the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion. Waves in an Empty Sea How did Einstein get this crazy idea ? I'm going to show you two reasons. The first is that light is an electromagnetic wave. Physicists had long known that light behaved like a wave. But waves need a medium to 'wave' in. Ocean waves require water; sound waves require air. Remove the medium and there is no wave. But then, what medium was sunlight passing through as it traveled through space? In the 1800s, many physicists believed there must be a medium in space, and they called it the luminiferous aether because that's fun to say. In 1887, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley devised a clever experiment to detect this aether. They built a device called an interferometer, which split a beam of light in half and sent the halves along two paths of equal length, bouncing off mirrors, and merging again at a detector, like this: Illustration: Rhett Allain Obviously they didn't have a laser, but they had a similar light source. Now, if the Earth was moving through an aether as it circled the sun, that aether would change the speed of light, depending on whether the light was moving in the direction of Earth's motion or at a right angle to that motion. And here's the genius part: They didn't have to actually measure the speed of light, they only had to see if the two beams arrived at the detector at the same time. If there was any change in speed, the beams would be out of sync and would cancel each other when recombined. That interference would show up as a dark spot on the detector. If they moved at exactly the same speed, the sinusoidal waves would align and you'd see a bright spot. They ran this experiment at all different times of year to get different angles with respect to the sun, but the result was always the same. There was no change in speed—which meant, sadly, that people had to stop saying 'luminiferous aether.' Evidently, light waves could travel through a vacuum! Maxwell's Equations and Reference Frames The reason for this, as proven by Heinrich Hertz, is that light is an electromagnetic wave—an oscillation of electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other. The changing electric field creates a magnetic field, and the changing magnetic field creates an electric field, and this endless cycle makes light self-propagating. It can travel through empty space because it's two waves in one. Now for the rough part (mathematically). We know the relationship between the electric and magnetic fields—it's described in Maxwell's famous four equations. If you use some math stuff (full details here), it's possible to write the following equations for the electric field (E) and the magnetic field (B). (If all these Greek symbols are Greek to you, just skip over this.) All you need to know is that, together, these equations describe an electromagnetic wave. But wait! That's not all. If we plug in the values of μ 0 and ε 0 —the fundamental magnetic and electric constants, respectively—you get a wave speed (v for velocity) that is exactly the speed of light: Einstein used this to postulate that the speed of light was the same for all observers. How? Well, since we accepted that any one inertial reference frame is as valid as another, Maxwell's equations must work in both. That means the speed of light is the same in both reference frames—even if they're in motion relative to one another. UNLIKE the tennis ball scenario above! Time Dilation Finally, imagine we build a clock to measure time. Not one of your grandfather's clocks with a swinging pendulum, which would be a problem in zero gravity. Our clock is cooler than that. Basically we get two parallel mirrors and bounce a pulse of light back and forth between them. Illustration: Rhett Allain If we know the distance between the mirrors (s) and the speed of the light (we do, it's c), then we can calculate the time for one tick. Now assume our clock is in a spaceship with a big window, like in the movies. This spaceship is moving with a constant velocity that is half the speed of light (c/2) with respect to some nearby planet. Someone on that planet uses a telescope to look through the spaceship window and peek at the light clock. Here's what that planet person would see: Illustration: Rhett Allain Notice that since the spaceship is moving, the light has to travel at an angle in order to hit the other spot on the opposite mirror. If we continued this, it would be a series of zigzags. Take a minute to think about that. It's like if you were riding in a bus and tossed a ball straight up and then caught it without moving your hand. In your reference frame, the ball just moves straight up and down. But to that guy on the street, the ball would trace out an arc, moving up and down but also forward. In our light clock, since the light has to travel at an angle to hit the correct spot, it travels a farther distance . Oh, but that light still travels at the speed of light, so it takes more time to reach the other mirror. And if the spaceship is moving at a speed of c/2, that would be a lot more time. Result? As seen from the person on the planet, the spaceship clock ticks slower. There you have it: time dilation. Does this mean that time goes slower for the people on the spaceship? Nope. In their reference frame the light just bounces up and down and time is normal. Yes, it seems very weird, but it's not. It only seems weird because we never travel anywhere near the speed of light. In fact, time slows down in any moving vehicle—even when you get in your car and drive to work—but at normal speeds the effect is so tiny that it's imperceptible.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
ImCheck's ICT01 Receives FDA Orphan Drug Designation for Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
ImCheck's ICT01 Receives FDA Orphan Drug Designation for Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical data showing unprecedented remission rates in newly diagnosed AML patients support advancing ICT01 into pivotal trials Marseille, France, July 18, 2025, 11:00 am CET – ImCheck Therapeutics today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) to its lead program, ICT01, a humanized anti-butyrophilin 3A (BTN3A) monoclonal antibody designed to selectively activate γ9δ2 T cells, for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). AML remains a significant clinical challenge, particularly for older or unfit patients who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy. 'Receiving FDA orphan drug designation for ICT01 is a significant recognition of ICT01's innovative therapeutic potential to meet the urgent unmet medical needs of AML patients," said Stephan Braun, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer of ImCheck Therapeutics. "This important regulatory milestone reinforces our confidence that ICT01 will become the first immunotherapy for AML patients and supports our goal of rapidly advancing ICT01 into pivotal studies based on the unprecedented results observed in the clinic to date.' In an oral presentation at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, ImCheck reported results from the Phase I/II EVICTION study, evaluating ICT01 in combination with azacitidine and venetoclax (Aza-Ven) in newly diagnosed AML patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Remarkably high remission rates and a positive overall survival signal were observed across a broad range of molecular subtypes, in particular those that are typically less responsive to Aza-Ven. The combination demonstrated a clinically well-manageable safety profile, with Grade ≥3 adverse events consistent with the expected hematological toxicity of Aza-Ven and AML itself. 'Orphan drug designation is a catalyst,' added Pierre d'Epenoux, Chief Executive Officer of ImCheck Therapeutics. 'It validates our regulatory strategy, de-risks and supports clinical development acceleration, and sends a strong signal about the unique potential of ICT01 to transform AML treatment as well as other solid tumor indications.' The FDA's orphan drug designation is granted to drugs and biologics intended for the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of rare diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. The designation is designed to encourage the development of therapies for underserved patient populations and offers benefits including tax credits for clinical trials, exemption from certain FDA fees, and up to seven years of marketing exclusivity upon approval. Additionally, the designation gives access to regulatory assistance for the drug development process. About the medical need in AML Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a significant clinical challenge, particularly for older or unfit patients who cannot tolerate intensive chemotherapy. While the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine has become the standard non-intensive regimen, it is not curative and relapse rates remain high. Most patients are not eligible for stem cell transplantation, often due to age, comorbidities, or insufficient response, and face limited treatment options and poor overall survival. Despite AML's known sensitivity to immune-mediated control, current immunotherapies targeting PD-1, TIM-3, or CD47 have not delivered meaningful clinical benefit. This underscores the urgent need for novel immuno-oncology approaches. Recently, γ9δ2 T cells, with their cytotoxic activity and unique dual role in both innate and adaptive immunity, have emerged as promising immune modulators. Their association with reduced relapse and prolonged survival, particularly in the post-transplant setting, suggests that enhancing their anti-leukemic potential could offer a meaningful new treatment option for high-risk AML patients. About ICT01 ICT01 is a humanized, anti-BTN3A (also known as CD277) monoclonal antibody that selectively activates γ9δ2 T cells, which are responsible for immunosurveillance of malignancy and infections. The three isoforms of BTN3A targeted by ICT01 are overexpressed on many solid tumors (e.g., melanoma, urothelial cell, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and lung cancer) and hematologic malignancies (e.g., leukemia and lymphomas) and also expressed on the surface of innate (e.g., γδ T cells and NK cells) and adaptive immune cells (T cells and B cells). BTN3A is essential for the activation of the anti-tumor immune response of γ9δ2 T cells. As demonstrated by data presented at past AACR, ASCO, ASH, ESMO and SITC conferences, ICT01 selectively activates circulating γ9δ2 T cells leading to migration of γ9δ2 T cells out of the circulation and into the tumor tissue and triggers a downstream immunological cascade through secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including but not limited to IFNγ and TNFα, further augmenting the anti-tumor immune response. Anti-tumor activity and efficacy of ICT01 have been shown in patients across several cancer IMCHECK THERAPEUTICS ImCheck Therapeutics is developing a new generation of immunotherapeutic antibodies targeting butyrophilins, a novel superfamily of immunomodulators. By unlocking the power of γ9δ2 T cells, ImCheck's innovative approach has the potential to transform treatments across oncology, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. The lead clinical-stage program, ICT01, has been advancing to late-stage trials, demonstrating a unique mechanism of action that modulates both innate and adaptive immunity. These 'first-in-class' activating antibodies may deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to first-generation immunotherapy approaches, in particular in rationale combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors and immunomodulatory anti-cancer drugs. Additionally, ImCheck's pipeline compounds are progressing toward clinical development for autoimmune and infectious diseases. The company benefits from the pioneering research of Prof. Daniel Olive (INSERM, CNRS, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Aix-Marseille University), a global leader in γ9δ2 T cells and butyrophilins, as well as the expertise of a seasoned management team and the commitment of leading U.S. and European investors. For further information: Press contacts: US and EU Trophic CommunicationsGretchen Schweitzer +49 (0) 172 861 8540imcheck@ FranceATCG PARTNERSCéline Voisin+33 (0)6 62 12 53 39imcheck@ Attachment PR in EnglishError while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
ImCheck's ICT01 Receives FDA Orphan Drug Designation for Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
ImCheck's ICT01 Receives FDA Orphan Drug Designation for Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical data showing unprecedented remission rates in newly diagnosed AML patients support advancing ICT01 into pivotal trials Marseille, France, July 18, 2025, 11:00 am CET – ImCheck Therapeutics today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) to its lead program, ICT01, a humanized anti-butyrophilin 3A (BTN3A) monoclonal antibody designed to selectively activate γ9δ2 T cells, for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). AML remains a significant clinical challenge, particularly for older or unfit patients who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy. 'Receiving FDA orphan drug designation for ICT01 is a significant recognition of ICT01's innovative therapeutic potential to meet the urgent unmet medical needs of AML patients," said Stephan Braun, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer of ImCheck Therapeutics. "This important regulatory milestone reinforces our confidence that ICT01 will become the first immunotherapy for AML patients and supports our goal of rapidly advancing ICT01 into pivotal studies based on the unprecedented results observed in the clinic to date.' In an oral presentation at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, ImCheck reported results from the Phase I/II EVICTION study, evaluating ICT01 in combination with azacitidine and venetoclax (Aza-Ven) in newly diagnosed AML patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Remarkably high remission rates and a positive overall survival signal were observed across a broad range of molecular subtypes, in particular those that are typically less responsive to Aza-Ven. The combination demonstrated a clinically well-manageable safety profile, with Grade ≥3 adverse events consistent with the expected hematological toxicity of Aza-Ven and AML itself. 'Orphan drug designation is a catalyst,' added Pierre d'Epenoux, Chief Executive Officer of ImCheck Therapeutics. 'It validates our regulatory strategy, de-risks and supports clinical development acceleration, and sends a strong signal about the unique potential of ICT01 to transform AML treatment as well as other solid tumor indications.' The FDA's orphan drug designation is granted to drugs and biologics intended for the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of rare diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. The designation is designed to encourage the development of therapies for underserved patient populations and offers benefits including tax credits for clinical trials, exemption from certain FDA fees, and up to seven years of marketing exclusivity upon approval. Additionally, the designation gives access to regulatory assistance for the drug development process. About the medical need in AML Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a significant clinical challenge, particularly for older or unfit patients who cannot tolerate intensive chemotherapy. While the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine has become the standard non-intensive regimen, it is not curative and relapse rates remain high. Most patients are not eligible for stem cell transplantation, often due to age, comorbidities, or insufficient response, and face limited treatment options and poor overall survival. Despite AML's known sensitivity to immune-mediated control, current immunotherapies targeting PD-1, TIM-3, or CD47 have not delivered meaningful clinical benefit. This underscores the urgent need for novel immuno-oncology approaches. Recently, γ9δ2 T cells, with their cytotoxic activity and unique dual role in both innate and adaptive immunity, have emerged as promising immune modulators. Their association with reduced relapse and prolonged survival, particularly in the post-transplant setting, suggests that enhancing their anti-leukemic potential could offer a meaningful new treatment option for high-risk AML patients. About ICT01 ICT01 is a humanized, anti-BTN3A (also known as CD277) monoclonal antibody that selectively activates γ9δ2 T cells, which are responsible for immunosurveillance of malignancy and infections. The three isoforms of BTN3A targeted by ICT01 are overexpressed on many solid tumors (e.g., melanoma, urothelial cell, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and lung cancer) and hematologic malignancies (e.g., leukemia and lymphomas) and also expressed on the surface of innate (e.g., γδ T cells and NK cells) and adaptive immune cells (T cells and B cells). BTN3A is essential for the activation of the anti-tumor immune response of γ9δ2 T cells. As demonstrated by data presented at past AACR, ASCO, ASH, ESMO and SITC conferences, ICT01 selectively activates circulating γ9δ2 T cells leading to migration of γ9δ2 T cells out of the circulation and into the tumor tissue and triggers a downstream immunological cascade through secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including but not limited to IFNγ and TNFα, further augmenting the anti-tumor immune response. Anti-tumor activity and efficacy of ICT01 have been shown in patients across several cancer IMCHECK THERAPEUTICS ImCheck Therapeutics is developing a new generation of immunotherapeutic antibodies targeting butyrophilins, a novel superfamily of immunomodulators. By unlocking the power of γ9δ2 T cells, ImCheck's innovative approach has the potential to transform treatments across oncology, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. The lead clinical-stage program, ICT01, has been advancing to late-stage trials, demonstrating a unique mechanism of action that modulates both innate and adaptive immunity. These 'first-in-class' activating antibodies may deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to first-generation immunotherapy approaches, in particular in rationale combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors and immunomodulatory anti-cancer drugs. Additionally, ImCheck's pipeline compounds are progressing toward clinical development for autoimmune and infectious diseases. The company benefits from the pioneering research of Prof. Daniel Olive (INSERM, CNRS, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Aix-Marseille University), a global leader in γ9δ2 T cells and butyrophilins, as well as the expertise of a seasoned management team and the commitment of leading U.S. and European investors. For further information: Press contacts: US and EU Trophic CommunicationsGretchen Schweitzer +49 (0) 172 861 8540imcheck@ FranceATCG PARTNERSCéline Voisin+33 (0)6 62 12 53 39imcheck@ Attachment PR in EnglishError in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data