The Rise and Fall of the Neurotic Housewife: Patient Sex in Psychotropic Drug Advertising to Physicians 1946–1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated a sex bias when it comes to the portrayal of men and women in medical journal advertisements for prescription drugs for psychiatric conditions. However, these studies have typically looked at ads over a restricted time period and often for a single diagnosis. Here we focus on ads for 3 diagnoses – anxiety, depression, and a combination of anxiety and depression – and cover nearly half a century to examine how the portrayal of patients changed over that time period with respect to sex. We sampled ads for products treating anxiety, depression, and anxiety/depression published in the Journal of the American Medical Association between 1946 and 1990. Our findings confirm other studies showing a marked preponderance of female patient representation during the 1960s in psychotropic drug advertising. However, we also show that from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the proportion of ads for drugs featuring depression and/or anxiety indications depicted male patients significantly more than prior years in which females predominated, demonstrating advertisers’ reaction to the critique of gender stereotyping.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".