Gender and Research Productivity of Vitreoretinal Surgery Fellowship Program Directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Characteristics of vitreoretinal surgery fellowship program directors (PDs) in North America are not well described. This study reports on the gender and research productivity of vitreoretinal surgery PDs in the United States and Canada. Materials and Methods: We reviewed demographics, total number of Scopus-indexed publications, h-index, and m-quotient for vitreoretinal surgery fellowship PDs in 2022. Descriptive statistics, student t -tests, χ 2 tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: Information was obtained on 83/89 (93%) PDs; 86% were male, and 84% did not have an additional graduate degree. The mean publication count was 81.54 (SD: 90.33) and mean h-index was 20.61 (SD: 16.49). There were no significant differences between female and male fellowship PDs with respect to number of publications, h-indices, and m-quotients. Conclusion: Women were underrepresented among vitreoretinal fellowship PDs although they had similar research productivity as their male colleagues. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:384–386.]
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 | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".