MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Gender disparities in National Institute of Health funding for hematologic malignancies, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and cellular therapeutics.

2021· article· en· W3169905521 on OpenAlexaff
Raheel S Siddiqui, Moazzam Shahzad, Mahrukh Majeed, Ali Hussain, Faryal Murtaza, Farhan Khalid, Ayesha Habib, Zobia Aijaz, Syeda Sadia Bukhari, Iqra Anwar, Sehar Altaf, Faiz Anwer, Sibgha Gull Chaudhary, Ramesh Balusu, Nausheen Ahmed, Siddhartha Ganguly, Sunil Abhyankar, Joseph P. McGuirk, Faisal Khosa, Muhammad Umair Mushtaq

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineInternal medicineHematologyTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11020 Background: Gender inequality in research funding has been studied extensively; however, the literature lacks evidence in Hematology. We investigated trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for hematologic malignancies (HM), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and cellular therapeutics (CT). Methods: The data on Hematology funding was retrieved from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) Categorical Spending for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. A total of 6351 entries were reported. Only grants (n=1834) that were related to HM, HSCT, and CT were included. After excluding non-relevant, 975 principal investigators (PIs) were included in the analysis. Additional data regarding PIs was ascertained from the Scopus database, LinkedIn, Doximity, and departmental websites, including the number of publications, number of years of active research, H-index, highest degree, gender, and institution. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21. Bivariate analyses, using chi-square and t-test, and linear regression analyses were performed. Results: In 2018 and 2019, 1834 grants totaling $799.4 million were awarded by the NIH for malignant hematology research (men 1301, 71% vs women 533, 29%). Of 975 PIs, 680 (70%) were men and 295 (30%) were women. Table highlights gender disparities in NIH funding and associated factors. Most of the grant recipients were Ph.D. or M.D./Ph.D. About 70% of total funding was awarded to male PIs. There were no gender differences in the mean number of grants and mean grant amount. Women had significantly lower years of active research and academic productivity. Conclusions: Although the gender gap in academic hematology has decreased in recent years, the latest trend suggests significant gender inequality in NIH funding for malignant hematology, transplantation, and cellular therapy.[Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.499
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.042 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→