Gender differences in the authorship of Global Major Gastroenterology Society Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gender differences remain a serious issue in the gastroenterology field, which negatively affect the career success and academic advancement of female gastroenterologists. In this study, we aim to identify gender differences in the authors of global major Gastroenterology Society guidelines. METHODS: We included six associations and collected guidelines published between 2003 and 2022. The genders of authors were determined and recorded for each guideline. Linear by linear association test was used to assess trends every 5 years. RESULTS: We included 210 guidelines and 461 authors. The proportion of female first and senior authors was 11.3% and 9.8%, respectively. The number of female first and senior authors in most societies has improved over the past 20 years, with the largest increase in the AGA. CONCLUSIONS: Women are still underrepresented among the authors of guidelines. Although gender differences have gained more attention in recent years, there are many obstacles to achieving gender equality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".