Sex disparities in parenteral and enteral nutrition societies' leadership worldwide: a 20-year retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in the global dialog surrounding sex and gender equity, an important gap persists with women markedly underrepresented in major roles within health care leadership. OBJECTIVES: We examined the extent of women's representation in prominent positions within parenteral and enteral nutrition (PEN) societies worldwide over a span of 2 decades. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis explored the sex distribution of society chairs, conference presidents, and editor-in-chief positions across 64 PEN societies between 2003 and 2022. Additionally, data on the first and last authors of endorsed clinical guidelines were collected from the 2 leading societies. RESULTS: Over the past 20 y, women held society chair positions in 34.4% of cases. The representation shifted from 30% during the decade from 2003 to 2012 to 40.5% from 2013 to 2022. Throughout these years, the numbers consistently ranged from 0 to 10; however, the median shifted upward from 1 during the first decade to 4 in the subsequent decade (P = 0.04). Of 420 congress presidencies, ∼30% were women. In endorsed guidelines, women were the first authors in 27.1% of cases (P < 0.001) and the last in 28.9% (P < 0.001) compared with men. Of the 123 journal editor-in-chief positions, women occupied 23 (18.7%). CONCLUSION: Over the last 2 decades, women have been consistently underrepresented in prominent leadership roles in PEN societies globally. Although there has been a noticeable shift toward more women in chair positions, true sex equality remains elusive. Moreover, sex disparities are even more pronounced in positions, such as conference presidents, authors of major guidelines, and editors-in-chief of society-affiliated journals. These data underscore the pressing need to enhance efforts toward sex equality across these domains.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".