Trends in gender of authors of original research in oncology among major medical journals: a retrospective bibliometric study

Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Advice on YouTube: Unveiling Gaps, Emphasizing Inclusivity, and Striving for Comprehensive Guidance

Background

As orthopaedic surgery remains a highly competitive specialty, YouTube has emerged as a major online resource for medical students seeking guidance for residency applications. The credibility, thoroughness, and representation of the advice provided in these videos warrant a critical analysis.

Methods

A YouTube search was conducted, and the top 100 videos were screened. Seventeen of the videos met the evaluation criteria. Three authors independently assessed these videos for 23 significant residency application variables. Content creators' qualifications, viewership, sex, and racial representation were also evaluated. Discrepancies were resolved through joint review and consensus.

Results

Of the 17 evaluated YouTube videos on orthopaedic surgery residency, research experience and the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1 score were the most discussed variables. Videos hosted by orthopaedic physicians received fewer views on average than those hosted by nonorthopaedics. Minority representation varied, with Asian-identifying creators receiving the highest average views. Male-hosted videos had greater viewership compared with female creators.

Conclusion

YouTube videos on orthopaedic surgery residency focused on research experience, reflecting changes in National Resident Matching Program's application evaluation metrics. The ambiguity of advice on research type and underemphasis on other crucial factors, such as letters of recommendation and interview performance, suggest the need for more comprehensive guidance. Moreover, the videos' demographic disparity compared with the actual field indicates the need for more diverse representations among content creators. We recommend that orthopaedic organizations create tailored and comprehensive guidance for prospective applicants.

Gender Equality Trends of First Authors in Publications of Artificial Intelligence and Thyroid

Thyroid diseases are diverse, ranging from benign conditions to potentially life-threatening disorders. Recently, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in evaluating thyroid disease has significantly enhanced medical research, diagnosis prediction, and algorithm development. Coupled with this advancement is the rising focus on the importance of gender equality in scientific publications. This study delves into the gender trends of first authors in papers related to "Artificial Intelligence and Thyroid" sourced from PubMed from 2003 to 2022, scrutinizing these trends based on both country and year. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on PubMed to retrieve relevant articles over this 19-year time span. Following this, the names and affiliated countries of the first authors were determined. The Namsor app, a tool for classifying personal names by gender, origin, or ethnicity, was then used to segregate the data based on gender. Statistical analyses were performed using the R software- ARIMA model and Fisher's exact test was applied to examine the correlations between gender and country of origin. From the 254 analyzed articles, 43.5% of the first authors were female, while 56.69% were male. The year 2022 saw the most significant number of female first-author publications. Intriguingly, the European Journal of Radiology was prominent due to its favorable gender ratio. Moreover, the association between gender and country was significant, with China being a standout. Limitations included focusing only on PubMed journals and using a third party for gender identification. Nevertheless, the study reveals a move toward gender parity in AI and thyroid research over the past 18 years, emphasizing the importance of sustained efforts for academic inclusivity.

Trends in Female Authorship in Orthopaedic Literature from 2002 to 2021: An Analysis of 168,451 Authors

BACKGROUND

Significant gender disparity exists in orthopaedic surgery. While women have increasingly entered the field, we are short of the critical mass needed to drive change, including in authorship. This study aimed to characterize trends in authorship in peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals in the context of gender.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional bibliometric study of orthopaedic journals in the United States. Articles that were indexed in the orthopaedic category of the Clarivate Journal Citation Report (JCR) and the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) were analyzed (n = 82). Journals not originating from the U.S. (n = 43) or not considered primarily orthopaedic journals (n = 13) were excluded. The 2020 impact factors (IFs) of the remaining 26 journals were recorded. The articles underwent automated data collection from PubMed for January 2002 to December 2021 using R software to collect the title, the journal, the publication year, the first and senior author names, and the country of origin. Gender was determined by Gender API ( https://gender-api.com ). Names with <90% accuracy were excluded.

RESULTS

Overall, 168,451 names were studied, with 85,845 and 82,606 first and senior authors, respectively. Of the first and senior authors, 13.6% and 9.9%, respectively, were female. The proportion of female first authors was significantly greater than the proportion of female senior authors. The average IF was significantly higher for male authors compared with female authors (p < 0.005). Articles with female first authors were significantly more likely to have a female senior author. Orthopaedic subspecialty journals had a smaller proportion of manuscripts authored by female first and senior authors than general journals (p < 0.0001). There were 4,451 articles written by a single author, of which 92% (4,093) were written by a man and 8% (358) were written by a woman. Over the 20-year study period, the proportion of female first authorship exhibited a significant positive trend; however, there was a non-significant increase in female senior authorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Female representation in orthopaedics has been growing over the past decade. Increasing publication rates of female authors reveal steps toward positive gender equity in the field and present an opportunity for female leadership visibility, illustrating the capabilities of women in orthopaedics and encouraging more women to join the field.

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.

Gender profile of principal investigators in a large academic clinical trials group

Introduction

Gender equity in medicine has become a significant topic of discussion due to consistently low female representation in academia and leadership roles. Gender imbalance directly affects patient care. This study examined the gender and craft group of the Principal Investigators (PI) of clinical trials run by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG)

Methods

Publicly available data was obtained from the AGITG website. Trials were divided into upper, lower gastrointestinal cancer, miscellaneous (neuroendocrine and gastrointestinal stromal tumours). Where multiple PIs were listed, all were counted. Craft group was assigned as surgical, medical, radiation oncology or other.

Results

There were 69 trials with 89 PI, where 52 trials were represented exclusively by male PIs. Of all PIs, 18 were women (20.2%); all were medical oncologists. Prior to 2005, all PIs were male. The craft group distribution of PIs was: 79% medical oncologists, 12% surgical oncologists, 8% radiation oncologist, 1% nuclear medicine physicians. Regarding trials with multiple PI's, there were 19 in total. Of these, 11 had only male PIs, which included 5 surgeons. Females were more likely to be a co-PI (42%) as opposed to sole PI (18%). There was no gender policy publicly available on the AGITG website.

Conclusions

There is a low percentage of female PIs in academic oncology trials in the portfolio of this large international trials group. No trial was led by a female surgical or radiation oncologist. There is a need to understand the reasons driving the disparity so that specific strategies can be put in place.