MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200265721 · doi:10.1177/15910199211030783

Women in neurointervention, a gender gap? Results of a prospective online survey

2021· article· en· W3200265721 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Power, Alessandra Biondi, Işıl Saatçi, Kathleen Bennett, Jeyaledchumy Mahadevan, Anne Christine Januel, Sirintara Singhara Na Ayudhaya, Ronit Agid

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neuroradiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentMedicineDemographyGender gapFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Women's representation in medicine has increased over time yet the proportion of women practicing neurointervention remains low. We conducted an anonymous online survey through which we could explore the gender gap in neurointervention, identify potential issues, difficulties, or obstacles women might face, and evaluate if men encounter similar issues. METHODS: An online questionnaire was designed in SurveyMonkey®. Invitation to participate was emailed through national and international neurointerventional societies as well as directly through private mailing lists to men and women working in neurointervention. Responses were collected from 10 May 2019 to 10 September 2019. RESULTS: There were 295 complete responses, 173 (59%) male and 122 (41%) female. Most respondents (83%) fell within age categories 35-60 years, with representation from 40 countries across five continents. In all 95% were working full time, 73% had worked as a neurointerventionalist for >6 years, 77% worked in University-affiliated teaching institutions. Almost half of the respondents indicated no female neurointerventionalist worked in their center. Female respondents were younger and age-adjusted analysis was undertaken. Significantly fewer females than males were married and had children. Significantly fewer females held supervisory roles, held academic titles, and significantly less had a mentor. Females were less satisfied in their careers. More females felt they receive less recognition than colleagues of the opposite sex. Males had a greater proportion of work time dedicated to neurointervention. Similar proportions of both genders experienced bullying in work (40%-47%); however, sexual harassment was more common for females. There were no differences between genders in how they dealt with complications or their effects on mental well-being. CONCLUSION: There are many potential reasons why women are underrepresented in neurointervention, however, the literature suggests this is not unique to our specialty. Multiple long-term strategies will be necessary to address these issues, some of which are discussed in the article.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional NeuroradiologySame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207