Do Women Have Equal Chances for an Academic Career in Radiation Oncology in Canada? A Comparison With Related Specialties
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PurposeThe progress of women in academic medicine appears to be curtailed. We evaluated gender differences in academia for residents in radiation oncology compared with 2 of its related specialties, radiology and medical oncology, across Canada.Methods and MaterialsWe analyzed abstracts presented between 2013 and 2016 at the annual meetings of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists and compared it to the corresponding data for the meetings of the Canadian Association of Radiologists and Canadian Association of Medical Oncology. We further evaluated gender composition of abstracts, presentations, and publications available on PubMed. Conversion rates according to gender and to medical specialties were assessed. Proportions were compared using Fisher exact test or the chi-squared test.ResultsAmong the 198 presented abstracts, 103 (52%) were published. Radiation oncology had the highest publishing rate with 90% (oncology 56%, radiology 40%). The publication rate between the medical specialties was significantly different (P < .001).Fifty-seven percent of abstracts presented by women were published versus 48% of abstracts presented by men. Overall, there was no significant difference between genders in terms of subsequent conversions into a scientific publication within each specialty (P = .25-1.0).In radiation oncology, women presented 67% of abstracts and published 95% of their presented abstracts, and in medical oncology, 66% of abstracts were from women and 57% of the presented abstracts were published. Among the published abstracts, 83% had the same first author in the abstract and the publication. Among those who lost their first-authorship status, 59% were women. However, there was no statistically significant difference between specialties for loss of first-author status.ConclusionsWe observed that from 2013 to 2016, women had the highest presentation and publication rate in radiation oncology. More prospective data are needed to monitor the progress of women in all specialties and their specific needs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».