Under-representation of Women as Proceduralists and Patients in TAVR and TMVr Procedures: Data, Implications and Proposed Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women are under-represented among transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) operators. This review assesses the representation of women as patients and as proceduralists and trial authors in major structural interventions. Women are under-represented as proceduralists in structural interventions: only 2% of TAVR operators and 1% of TMVr operators are women. Only 1.5% of authors in landmark clinical TAVR and TMVr trials are interventional cardiologists who are women (4/260). Significant under-representation and under-enrolment of women in landmark TAVR trials is evident: the calculated participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) is 0.73, and in TMVr trials, the PPR is 0.69. Under-representation of women is also evident in registry data (PPR = 0.84 for TAVR registries and for TMVr registries). In structural interventional cardiology, women are under-represented as proceduralists, trial participants and patients. This under-representation has the potential to affect the recruitment of women to randomised trials, subsequent guideline recommendations, selection for treatment, patient outcomes and sex-specific data analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".