Women in Lymphoma: A 4‐year journey in promoting gender equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE NEED FOR CHANGEGender diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in academic and clinical medicine is acknowledged as more than just the 'right thing to do'.It has led to improvements in innovation, leadership quality, as well as workplace culture and retention for all genders. 1 In hematology and oncology, recent progress includes the first female presidents of large international organizations such as the American Society of Hematology (ASH), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), British Society of Hematology (BSH) and European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).Yet in our own field of lymphoma, despite gender parity in medical training for decades, women are underrepresented in leadership roles due to continued failures of system structures, and inherent often unconscious biases.2,3 Lymphoma 'manels' at some international conferences persist, and there is a visible minority of female speakers and first or senior investigators/authors in academic presentations and publications.Few women have a 'seat at the table' in editorial and advisory boards, and limited leadership of industry clinical trials continues, despite a large pipeline and talent pool of female lymphoma experts globally.As counterpoint to this Women in Lymphoma (WiL) is delighted to be invited by the Editor of Hematological Oncology to present this Special Issue, showcasing a suite of expert updates in lymphoma, the first ever to be authored exclusively by women.We also share this introductory article describing the formative years of WiL, inspired and informed by the authors' lived experience with near parity in gender representation in clinical practice, while remaining in a significant minority group within lymphoma leadership.We trust this article and two accompanying manuscripts, one written by three senior European WiL reflecting on their career challenges and opportunities, and a perspective from the inaugural male Chair of WiL's Change Champions Committee, educate and empower both women and men in lymphoma to address this inequity, to hasten academic progress and advances for our patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".