ISCCM Position Statement for Improving Gender Balance in Critical Care Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender disparity in Critical Care Medicine (CCM) persists globally, with women being underrepresented. Female Intensivists remain a minority, facing challenges in academic and leadership positions at the workplace and within academic societies. The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) recognized the need for addressing issues related to gender parity and constituted its first Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee in 2023. Through a Delphi process involving 38 Panelists including 53% women, consensus and stability were achieved for 18 statements (95%). From these 18 consensus statements, 15 position statements were drafted to address gender balance issues in CCM. These statements advocate for equal opportunities in recruitment, workplace inclusivity, prevention of harassment, and improved female representation in leadership roles, nominated positions, and conferences. While the consensus reflects a significant step toward gender equity, further efforts are required to implement, advocate, and evaluate the impact of these measures. The ISCCM position statements offer valuable guidance for promoting gender balance within society and the CCM community. How to cite this article: . ISCCM Position Statement for Improving Gender Balance in Critical Care Medicine. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(S2):S288-S296.
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 | 0.040 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
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".