Understanding the impact of gender during gastroenterology postgraduate medical training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Literature from procedural specialties reveals gender differences amongst trainees regarding work-life balance, career goals, and workplace discrimination. Purpose To determine the impact of gender on gastroenterology resident experiences. Methods A 70-question cross-sectional survey was electronically disseminated to gastroenterology trainees across Canada. Survey questions addressed personal, professional, financial, and training characteristics. Comparisons were made between self-identified men and women. Wilcoxon test was used for continuous variables. Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test were applied for categorical variables. Qualitative thematic analysis was applied for short answer responses with 2 independent reviewers. Results Forty-four trainees were surveyed, with 41% women. At work, women were more likely to have their clinical competency challenged than men (35% vs 8%, P = .024) and report difficult relationships with support staff (35% vs 0%, P = .001). Most trainees planned to complete further gastroenterology training (86%), but males were more likely to choose therapeutics (36% vs 0%, P = .033). Women more commonly were the predominant caregiver for children (67% vs 8%, P = .012) and felt that having children would slow their career advancement (77% vs 33%, P = .046). Men were more likely to prefer having children during residency (50% vs 7%, P = .036). No statistical difference was found between genders regarding desire for advanced subspecialty training, leadership aspirations, or academic pursuits. Conclusion Gender-related differences exist amongst Canadian gastroenterology trainees regarding work-life balance and career advancement. Women may benefit from supports to allow them to meet career goals which are similar to their male peers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".