National institutes of health: Analysis of gender differences in anesthesiology research funding
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although studies have shown an increase in the representation of women in academic anesthesiology, it remains one of the medical specialties most dominated by men. While gender disparities have been identified in academic anesthesiology, literature on discrepancies in funding allocated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is scarce. The objective of the present study was to explore these discrepancies from 2017 to 2020 and assess potential changes in funding trends over time. Publicly available funding data was retrospectively obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER) database for fiscal years 2017 to 2020. Information regarding each principal investigator (PI) was obtained from the Scopus database and institutional websites. For statistical comparison of continuous variables, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed. Simple linear regression analyses assessed the relationship between fiscal year and number of NIH grants awarded to PIs. Median NIH amount per grant [interquartile range (IQR)] was determined to be $359,038 ($233,947–$476,933) for PIs that were men, greater than that of $330,865 ($164,268–$458,785) for PIs that were women (p < .05). Similarly, men received a greater median NIH grant amount per PI, with a value of $348,751 ($222,043–$442,075), compared to women who received $268,634 ($161,159–$414,384) (p < .05). When stratified by terminal degree, significantly higher median grant amounts (p < .05) were awarded to MD and PhD holders who were men versus their women counterparts. Lastly, an increasing trend in obtaining NIH grants between 2017 and 2020 was observed for PIs that were men overall, including PIs holding MD/PhD degrees (p < .05). No such trend was observed for PIs who were women. This study demonstrates a significantly greater number of NIH grants and higher award values allocated to researchers who were men than researchers who were women in academic anesthesiology over the past four years. Moreover, an increase in the number of grants secured by PIs who were women from 2017–2020 was not observed. In the future, longitudinal trends in NIH funding for principal investigators (PIs) of both genders in anesthesiology should be investigated.
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 | 0,019 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 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 ».