MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151594617 · doi:10.15420/cfr.2020.31

Representation of Women Physicians in Heart Failure Clinical Practice

2021· review· en· W3151594617 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiac failure review · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSubspecialtyDemographicsClinical PracticeMedicineHeart failureFamily medicineGender equityRepresentation (politics)Inclusion (mineral)Equity (law)Medical educationGerontologyInternal medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceDemographySociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women have been integral in the development of advanced heart failure (HF) and transplantation as a clinical subspecialty of cardiovascular medicine. However, women remain underrepresented in leadership positions, senior academic ranks and as researchers in HF. In recent years, there have been accelerating efforts to examine sex differences in the clinical and research domains of HF. The purpose of this review is to discuss the representation of women in HF training programmes and clinical practice, the demographics of HF clinicians compared with other cardiology subspecialties, the persistent sex disparities in HF practice and research environments and potential strategies to promote equity and inclusion for women in the field.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it