Academic surgery: Faculty gender and racial trends through an intersectional lens
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The healthcare workforce in the United States (US) has an inequitable representation of women and Underrepresented in Medicine (URIM) groups, including Black or African Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, Hispanic or Latinos, and Asians. Despite almost three decades of equal representation of women students in medical school, the gender disparity persists throughout leadership ranks. Studies have shown that residency recruitment is a limiting factor in diversity in surgery, and systemic changes are needed to increase the representation of minorities and women in the medical and surgical disciplines.Our study used data from the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) to analyze the demographic distribution of surgical faculty at medical schools from 1971 to 2021. Data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel and JupyterLab programs, and a t-test was used to determine significant changes over time. The categories with significant changes were reported, and proportion bar graphs were created. Data was classified into multiple categories.URIM Surgeons have seen an increased representation in Surgical faculty during our study over the past five decades. Still, these trends have not brought them in line with their proportion among the US population. Significant trends in surgical chair positions included a 21% decrease in Whites, a 15% increase in Asians, a 2.4% increase in Blacks, and a 3.8% increase in Hispanics. There were no significant trends for Natives. Significant trends in the academic rank of Professor included a 14% increase in Asians, a 1.1% increase in Blacks, a 1.5% increase in Hispanics, and an 18.4% decrease in Whites. A slight increase among URIM Surgeons is concerning when considering that these trends span from 1971 to 2021.The data showed that White and Asian Surgeons were overrepresented in surgical discipline compared to their proportions among the US population, while Black, Hispanic, and Native Surgeons were underrepresented. This was especially true in higher academic ranks and chair positions. Women were also underrepresented in surgery, with the slowest growth in higher academic ranks and leadership positions.Al.
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 | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».