Gender Dynamics in Radiology: The Influence of Terminology on Subspecialty Choices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender disparity in radiology and its subspecialties presents a significant and persistent challenge, with only a small fraction of female Canadian medical students choosing radiology compared to their male counterparts. This disparity is further reflected in the professional landscape, where only 23% of practicing radiologists are women, predominantly concentrated in "women's imaging," which typically includes breast and gynecological imaging. This categorization not only perpetuates professional segregation by reinforcing gender stereotypes but also impacts patient care and research by suggesting that these areas are exclusively women's health issues. This paper explores the consequences of the "women's imaging" label and advocates for a reevaluation and renaming of subspecialties to more neutral, organspecific terms to encourage broader interest and participation. Furthermore, we propose strategies to enhance gender equity across all radiological subspecialties, including integrating radiology more thoroughly into medical education and promoting visible leadership roles for women.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it