Abstract 103: Women in Leadership Positions in Academic Cardiology: A Study of Program Directors and Division Chiefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cross-sectional studies demonstrate that women are often under-represented in key-leadership roles. We sought to examine the proportion of women in cardiology leadership positions and to compare the findings with the disparity prevalent in the overall cardiology faculty. Furthermore, we aspired to compare the proportion of women in leadership positions to the proportion in which they entered the cardiology field. Methods: Cardiology fellowship training programs of all teaching hospitals of the United States were identified from Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (AMA FREIDA). Program directors and division chiefs were identified from the institutions’ websites, and their research statistics and years of graduation were extracted from Scopus and Doximity. Results: Data of all (n=512) cardiology fellowship program directors, as well as 69% (n=140) of cardiology division chiefs were collected. A lower percentage of women held the role of division chief (5% vs. 95%) or program director (14% vs. 86%). However, when compared to the proportion of women in the 1992 fellowship cohort, women were significantly overrepresented in the role of program directors, with no significant difference in representation at the level of division chief. When compared to the overall cardiology faculty, program directors had significantly more publications and were more likely to have an academic rank of full professor (40% vs. 28%) or associate professor (37% vs. 23%). Male program directors had a significantly higher number of research publications, H-index and academic rank than their female counterparts; however, such difference was not seen at the level of division chief. Conclusion: Gender disparity is present in both cardiology program director and division chief roles. However, when compared to the historical cohort, significant overrepresentation of women was seen in the program director position, while proportionate representation was seen in the division chief role.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".