Gender Differences in Authorship Among Transplant Physicians: Are We Bridging the Gap?

Lack of Diversity in Transplant Hepatology Fellowship Program Directorship

BACKGROUND

Diversity in medicine has garnered significant attention in recent medical workforce research, as studies consistently reveal the beneficial impact of race-concordant visits on patient outcomes, adherence, and satisfaction. While diversity among residency and fellowship program directors has been studied in other fields, little is known about the diversity within niche fellowship programs such as transplant hepatology. This study aims to investigate the demographic information of program directors in transplant hepatology fellowship programs.

METHODS

We identified transplant hepatology fellowship programs and their program directors from the American College of Gastroenterology website. Multiple reviewers compiled demographic and training information from internet searches, which was analyzed using chi-square analysis. In assessing racial diversity, researchers identified perceived race using multiple indicators, including name, physical appearance, and affiliation with identity associations.

RESULTS

Our study analyzed data from 72 program directors, with 61.11% being male. Among the program directors, 55.6% appeared non-Hispanic White, 36.11% appeared Asian, while apparent Hispanics and Blacks represented 5.56% and 4.17%, respectively. Our analysis also found that male program directors appeared largely non-Hispanic white (72.72%) and were significantly more likely to be professors (p = 0.045) rather than associate or assistant professors.

DISCUSSION

Our findings indicate that transplant hepatology fellowship programs are primarily led by male and non-Hispanic White physicians. To attract underrepresented medical students and residents, it is critical to make meaningful efforts to improve diversity and ensure equitable representation of leaders. Future research should focus on developing strategies to build a more inclusive workforce while addressing existing leadership inequities.

Abdominal Transplant Surgeons: The Lack of Female Surgeons and People From Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in Academic and Clinical Leadership

OBJECTIVES

The demographic disparities among surgeons in academic leadership positions is well documented. We aimed to characterize the present demographic details of abdominal transplant surgeons who have achieved academic and clinical leadership positions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the 2022-2023 American Society of Transplant Surgeons membership registry to identify 1007 active abdominal transplant surgeons. Demographic details (academic and clinical titles) were collected and analyzed using the chi-square test, the Fisher exact test, and t tests. Multinomial logistic regressions were conducted.

RESULTS

Female surgeons (P < .001) and surgeons from racial-ethnic minorities (P = .027) were more likely to be assistants or associates rather than full professors. White male surgeons were more likely to be full professors than were White female (P < .001), Asian female (P = .008), and Asian male surgeons (P = .005). There were no Black female surgeons who were full professors. The frequency of full professorship increased with surgeon age (P < .001). Male surgeons were more likely to hold no academic titles (P < .001). Female surgeons were less likely to be chief of transplant(P = .025), chief of livertransplant (P = .001), chief of pancreas transplant (P = .037), or chair of surgery (P = .087, significance at 10%). Chief of kidney transplant was the most common clinical position held by a surgeon from a racial or ethnic minority group. Female surgeons were more likely to hold no clinical titles (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The underrepresentation of women and people from racial and ethnic minority groups in academic and clinical leadership positions in the field of abdominal transplant surgery remains evident. White male physicians are more likely to obtain full professorship, and they comprise most of the clinical leadership positions overall. A continued push for representative leadership is needed.

Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022

Background

Health research that significantly impacts global clinical practice and policy is often published in high-impact factor (IF) medical journals. These outlets play a pivotal role in the worldwide dissemination of novel medical knowledge. However, researchers identifying as women and those affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been largely underrepresented in high-IF journals across multiple fields of medicine. To evaluate disparities in gender and geographical representation among authors who have published in any of five top general medical journals, we conducted scientometric analyses using a large-scale dataset extracted from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and Nature Medicine.

Methods

Author metadata from all articles published in the selected journals between 2007 and 2022 were collected using the DimensionsAI platform. The Genderize.io API was then utilized to infer each author's likely gender based on their extracted first name. The World Bank country classification was used to map countries associated with researcher affiliations to the LMIC or the high-income country (HIC) category. We characterized the overall gender and country income category representation across the medical journals. In addition, we computed article-level diversity metrics and contrasted their distributions across the journals.

Findings

We studied 151,536 authors across 49,764 articles published in five top medical journals, over a long period spanning 15 years. On average, approximately one-third (33.1%) of the authors of a given paper were inferred to be women; this result was consistent across the journals we studied. Further, 86.6% of the teams were exclusively composed of HIC authors; in contrast, only 3.9% were exclusively composed of LMIC authors. The probability of serving as the first or last author was significantly higher if the author was inferred to be a man (18.1% vs 16.8%, P < .01) or was affiliated with an institution in a HIC (16.9% vs 15.5%, P < .01). Our primary finding reveals that having a diverse team promotes further diversity, within the same dimension (i.e., gender or geography) and across dimensions. Notably, papers with at least one woman among the authors were more likely to also involve at least two LMIC authors (11.7% versus 10.4% in baseline, P < .001; based on inferred gender); conversely, papers with at least one LMIC author were more likely to also involve at least two women (49.4% versus 37.6%, P < .001; based on inferred gender).

Conclusion

We provide a scientometric framework to assess authorship diversity. Our research suggests that the inclusiveness of high-impact medical journals is limited in terms of both gender and geography. We advocate for medical journals to adopt policies and practices that promote greater diversity and collaborative research. In addition, our findings offer a first step towards understanding the composition of teams conducting medical research globally and an opportunity for individual authors to reflect on their own collaborative research practices and possibilities to cultivate more diverse partnerships in their work.

Representation of Women Authorship in the Top 5 Transplantation Journals in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States, only 13% of transplant surgeons are women. We evaluated gender distribution and trends of American authorship over the past 10 y in high-impact solid organ transplantation journals to gain insight into the current status of women authorship in transplantation.

METHODS

Original articles from 2012 to 2021 from the 5 highest-impact solid organ transplantation journals were extracted from Scopus. First and last author's gender was predicted using Genderize.io. Data of first and last authors, article type and topic, location, citation, and funding metrics were analyzed. Chi-square, logistic regression, and trend tests were performed where appropriate. Statistical significance was set at <0.05.

RESULTS

Women's first and last authorship increased over time among all journals. There was an increase in women first authors in the American Journal of Transplantation and in senior women authors in Liver Transplantation and Transplantation . Significant differences in gender authorship in lung, intestine, pancreas, general, and islet cell transplantation were found. Women's last authorship was associated with 1.69 higher odds of having a woman first author when adjusting for year and journal. There was an increase in the rate of women's first and last author collaborations over the years. Women last authors had 1.5 higher odds of being funded by the National Institutes of Health over the years.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in women transplant surgeons and physicians, the gap in women authorship in transplantation persists. Women's last authorship was associated with higher odds of having a woman first author, pointing to the importance of mentorship for women joining the transplant academia.

A scientometric analysis of fairness in health AI literature

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are central components of today's medical environment. The fairness of AI, i.e. the ability of AI to be free from bias, has repeatedly come into question. This study investigates the diversity of members of academia whose scholarship poses questions about the fairness of AI. The articles that combine the topics of fairness, artificial intelligence, and medicine were selected from Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Embase using keywords. Eligibility and data extraction from the articles were done manually and cross-checked by another author for accuracy. Articles were selected for further analysis, cleaned, and organized in Microsoft Excel; spatial diagrams were generated using Public Tableau. Additional graphs were generated using Matplotlib and Seaborn. Linear and logistic regressions were conducted using Python to measure the relationship between funding status, number of citations, and the gender demographics of the authorship team. We identified 375 eligible publications, including research and review articles concerning AI and fairness in healthcare. Analysis of the bibliographic data revealed that there is an overrepresentation of authors that are white, male, and are from high-income countries, especially in the roles of first and last author. Additionally, analysis showed that papers whose authors are based in higher-income countries were more likely to be cited more often and published in higher impact journals. These findings highlight the lack of diversity among the authors in the AI fairness community whose work gains the largest readership, potentially compromising the very impartiality that the AI fairness community is working towards.

Sex Disparities in Academic Productivity and Rank Among Abdominal Transplant Faculty in the United States

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in academic rank and productivity among members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons in the United States.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, focusing on current board-certified abdominal transplant surgeons in the United States. Demographic factors such as sex, region, and faculty rank were collected from institutional websites. Academic metrics, including H-index, total publications, and relative citation ratio, were collected from Scopus and iCite.

RESULTS

We identified 536 surgeon members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons with an academic institution. The majority were men (83%). Men were in practice longer than women (17.9 ± 11 vs 11.7 ± 9 years, P < .0001) and had higher academic metrics, including H-index (25.6 ± 20 vs16.4 ± 14, P < .0001) and total publications (110 ± 145 vs 58.8 ± 69, P < .0001). There was a significant difference in faculty appointments by sex (P < .05), with men showing evidence of increased academic advancement. After adjusting for academic rank, PhD status, and location of medical school and residency, women remained associated with a lower H-index on multivariate analysis (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Sex disparities in academic rank and achievement are present among transplant surgical faculty in the United States, and future efforts are needed to promote sex equity in transplant surgery academia.

Ethnic and Racial Diversity Among Surgeon and Non-Surgeon Deans of Allopathic Medical Schools

INTRODUCTION

Previous publications have assessed the diversity among medical students, residents, faculty, and department leaders in surgery and medicine overall. We aim to evaluate the diversity among medical school deans in the United States. We quantify and compare the representation of women and underrepresented minority surgeon and non-surgeons.

METHODS

151 allopathic medical schools were included. Data regarding demographics, education, training, and previous leadership position were collected from institutional websites, online resources, and July 2021 Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Deans. Demographics for surgeon and non-surgeon were compared using chi square and logistic regression with 5% significance interval.

RESULTS

21.9% (n = 33) of all medical school deans were surgeons. 21.2% (n = 7) were women, which was not significantly different from non-surgeons (22%, P = .92). All the women surgeons were non-Hispanic white, similar to all deans (P = .83). 78.8% (n = 26) of all surgeon deans were non-Hispanic White compared to 84.7% (n = 100) overall (P = .28). There were 13 Black deans, four of whom were surgeons, and only one Hispanic dean, who was not a surgeon. Surgeons were more likely to be fellows of their professional society (P = .012).

CONCLUSION

The demographic diversity of surgeon and non-surgeon US medical school deans is not significantly different. The deficiencies in leadership diversity in medicine persists among medical school deans. There remains substantial room to improve the representation of women and underrepresented minorities as deans.

Variations in Author Gender in Obstetrics Disease Prevalence Literature: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to evaluate gender differences in authorship of prevalence literature concerning intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). GDM studies were matched for publication year and study country as a gender-neutral obstetric disease with similar morbidity to IPV. Relevant studies were captured without language restrictions via online searches of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022. Proportion of female authors and gender of the first and corresponding author were outcome measures. Multivariable regression models were built to examine if female authors featured more or less often in IPV during pregnancy and GDM literature adjusting by the influence of type of study, country's human development index (HDI), year of publication and journal's impact factor. 137 IPV-GDM studies pairs were included. Female authors in IPV studies were slightly lower than in GDM [59.7%, 95% CI 54.7-64.7, vs. 54.9%, 95% CI 50.7-59.1, p = 0.204]. Studies published in high-income countries were more likely to be signed by a woman as first and corresponding author (Odds Ratio 2.22, 95% CI 1.20; 4.11, p = 0.011 and Odds Ratio 2.24, CI 1.22; 4.10, p = 0.009 respectively) and proportion of women as corresponding authors decreased as the journal impact factor increased (β = 0.62, 95% CI 0.37, 1.05, p = 0.075). There is a gender gap in the field of prevalence research in IPV during pregnancy with variations according to the level of development. International programs aimed at eradicating these inequalities are needed.

Diversity in American Society of Transplant Surgeons Governance: Equitable but Unequal

OBJECTIVES

The diversity in the governance of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons has not been described. We aimed to quantify the present state of its leadership as a baseline to inform future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Lists of leaders on the American Society of Transplant Surgeons Council, the COVID-19 Strike Force, and 20 different American Society of Transplant Surgeons committees were obtained from the Society's website. Demographic and training information for the members were compiled through internet searches and analyzed.

RESULTS

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons Council included 15 members, with 20% women. It was 93.3% non-Hispanic White. The COVID-19 Strike Force included 12 surgeons, 16.7% of whom were female, with 75% non-Hispanic White. Of the 198 committee members, 23.7% were women, 68.7% were nonHispanic White, 16.6% were Asian, 8.1% were Hispanic, and 6.6% were Black. Among female committee members, underrepresented minorities comprised 23.6%. Committee chairs included 23% women, 23% underrepresented minorities, and 2.3% minority women. International medical graduates were more likely men (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Representation of women in the American Society of Transplant Surgeons leadership has kept pace with their membership in the transplant surgery workforce. There is a deficiency of female under - represented minorities in leadership positions at the Society. Further interventions are required to recruit underrepresented minorities to transplant surgery, catalog their footprint in the workforce, and champion their role as leaders within the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Gender Distribution & Rank of Authorship in Surgical Literature

BACKGROUND

Authorship of surgical literature is important for the career advancement of surgeons, and gender disparities in authorship may hinder the representation and leadership of women within academic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the gender distribution of first, senior, and overall authorship in peer-reviewed surgical journal studies across all surgical specialties to determine if disparities exist.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies investigating the gender distribution of authorship of surgical literature published before December 10th, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen's Q test for heterogenous effects was used to determine whether random or fixed-effects models were appropriate.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies investigating gender distribution of authorship met inclusion, which included a total of 136,627 pooled studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated the meta-proportion of first authorship for women to be 20.6% (95% CI: 13.9, 28.2), the meta-proportion of senior authorship for women to be 11.9% (95% CI: 6.6, 18.5), and the meta-proportion of overall authorship for women to be 23% (95% CI: 16.2, 30.7). In addition, the proportion of senior authorship for women was found to be significantly lower than the proportion of overall authorship for women (11.9% versus 23.0%, P = .0106).

CONCLUSION

There is a significantly smaller proportion of women who are first, senior, and overall authors in surgical literature compared to their colleagues who are men. Sustainable and effective solutions aimed at improving the representation of women surgeons in surgical research and research leadership are necessary.

The sticky surgical floor: An analysis of female authorship trends in vascular surgery

OBJECTIVE

Prior research in vascular surgery has identified significant gender disparities in leadership positions, but few data exist regarding gender disparities in vascular publications. This study aims to evaluate authorship trends by gender in the three highest impact factor vascular surgery journals.

METHODS

In this bibliometric analysis, PubMed was searched for articles published in the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, the Journal of Vascular Surgery, and Annals of Vascular Surgery from 2015 to 2019. The web-based application Genderize used predictive algorithms to classify names of first and last authors as male or female. Statistical analyses regarding trends in authorship were performed using Stata16.

RESULTS

A total of 6457 articles were analyzed, with first author gender predicted with >90% confidence in 83% (4889/5796) and last author gender in 88% (5078/5796). Overall, 25% (1223/4889) of articles had women first authors, and 10% (501/5078) had women last authors. From 2015 to 2019, there was a slight increase in the proportion of articles written by women first authors (P = .001), but no increase in the proportion of articles written by women last authors (P = .204). The proportion of articles written by women last authors was lower than the proportion of active women vascular surgeons in 2015 (8% of articles vs 11% of surgeons; P = .015), 2017 (9% of articles vs 13% of surgeons; P < .001), and 2019 (11% of articles vs 15% of practicing surgeons; P < .001). The average number of last-author publications was higher for men (2.35 ± 3.76) than for women (1.62 ± 1.88, P = .001). The proportion of unique authors who were women was less than the proportion of active women vascular surgeons in 2017 (10% unique authors vs 13% surgeons; P = .047), but not in 2015 (9% unique authors vs 11% surgeons; P = .192) or 2019 (13% unique authors vs 15% surgeons; P = .345). Notably, a woman last author was associated with 1.45 higher odds of having a woman first author (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.79; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 5 years, there has been no significant increase in women last authors among top-tier journals in vascular surgery. Women remain under-represented as last authors in terms of proportion of published articles, but not in terms of proportion of unique authors. Nevertheless, women last authors are more likely to publish with women first authors, indicating the importance of women-led mentorship in achieving publication gender equity. Support for women surgeons through grants and promotions is essential not only for advancing last authorship gender equity, but for advancing junior faculty and trainee academic careers.

Kidney transplant surgical director training: Urologists represent a functional alternative to general surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplant (KT) directors are general surgeons or urologists. All KT centers must meet established performance standards. However, it has not been established if general surgery and urology led programs have disparate outcomes.

METHODS

Transplant outcomes and donor-recipient characteristics by director training were investigated. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) directory, program websites were analyzed for surgical director demographics. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) 1-year kidney survival and deceased donor (DD) wait-time rankings were evaluated. A retrospective analysis of 142 157 KT recipients from 2010 to 2019 was performed using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database.

RESULTS

One hunderd and seventy three (90.6%) KT programs were led by general surgeons. There were no significant differences in gender, ethnicity, region, credentials, or fellowship completion. Recipients undergoing KT with urology led programs were older (P = .002) and had longer wait-times (P < .001). These centers used higher KDPI (.47 vs. .45, P < .001) and higher HLA mismatch (3.92 vs. 3.89, P = .02) kidneys. Urology led centers utilized living donors less frequently (32.1% vs. 35.8%, P < .001) and had longer CIT (15.44 vs. 12.21, P < .001). Both had similar SRTR ranking of 1-year survival and DD wait-time.

CONCLUSION

Most directors were general surgeon. Patient outcomes did not differ by transplant director training. Urologists represent a viable option for KT leadership and recruitment should be encouraged.

Gender gap in authorship within published orthodontic research. An observational study on evidence and time-trends over a decade

AIM

To assess the representation of female authors in senior and leading positions in orthodontic research publications, as well as the fraction of women participating in the publication reports, for over a decade. In addition, association of women representation in orthodontic research and characteristics such as journal of publication, year, study design/topic, and others, were sought.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic search was performed within three major orthodontic journals, namely the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), and the Angle Orthodontist (ANGLE) to identify all types of research articles published within two distinct year cohorts, the 2008-10 and the 2018-20. The outcomes of interest pertained to proportion of women in senior (last) and leading (first) position, and fraction of overall participation in the author list.

RESULTS

A total of 2539 articles were eligible for inclusion, with an overall number of contributing authors being 11 608, of which 34.4% were female. For seniority in authorship, 30.1% (312/1038) of the publications within 2018-20 were attributed to female authors, while 25.8% (388/1501) was identified in 2008-10. Publication timeline, geographic region, and thematic topic of publication were determined as significant predictors. For leading (first) authorship, the respective percentages were 44.7% (464/1038) within 2018-20, and 34.7% (521/1501) in 2008-10. Dissemination timeline, geographic region and journal of publication were identified by the multivariable analysis, as revealing evidence of association with female leading publication authorship. Overall, the median proportion of female authors within the author list was 33.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

A gender gap related to Orthodontic research publications is persistent, with participation of women either as senior, or as leading authors, being suboptimal. Consistent efforts should be set in place, to facilitate more equal representation of women in research publishing, being supported by academia.