Gender Representation in Major Orthopaedic Surgery Meetings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Orthopaedic surgery suffers from gender disparity, and annual conferences are visible opportunities to quantify gender representation within a field. Therefore, the purpose of this manuscript was to investigate the prevalence of female speakers and moderators, and male-only panel sessions, at 10 major Orthopaedic Surgery meetings. Methods: Conference programs and details of faculty moderating or presenting in 10 Orthopaedic Surgery annual meetings in 2021 were retrieved. Conferences were selected with the aim of size and diversity in subspecialty topics and included American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Association for Hand Surgery, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA), European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, North American Spine Society, Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS), Orthopaedic Trauma Association, and Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA). Primary outcomes included percentage of female chairs and speakers and percentage of male-only panels, while secondary outcomes included number of publications, number of citations, and H-indexes of faculty. Further subgroup comparisons were performed between male-only panels and non-male-only panels and female members and male members. Results: Of 207 included sessions, 121 (58.5%) were male-only panels and 150 (12.6%) of 1,188 faculty members were women. Conferences organized by the COA, ORS, and POSNA had higher percentages of female representation, while spine surgery and adult hip/knee reconstruction sessions had more than 70% male-only panels and fewer than 10% female members. There were no significant differences between male members and female members regarding years of practice; however, male members were more likely to hold the title of professor (p < 0.001). Male members and female members stratified by quartiles of publications, citations, and H-indexes, moderated or participated in similar numbers of sessions, indicating an absence of selection bias. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of male-only panels (58.5%) and an overall lack of female representation (12.6%) in 10 major Orthopaedic Surgery meetings. Male members and female members from these conferences were found to have similar qualifications academically. Specific strategies such as the elimination of male-only panels, selecting diverse conference organizers, and forming conference equity, diversity, and inclusion committees can help achieve cultural change. Level of Evidence: Level V.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».