The place of women in Canadian surgical subspecialities : how gender influences research productivity in academic ophthalmology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and urology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The road to advancing gender equity in academic surgery takes longer than in other medical specialties. Disparities in high academic ranks and leadership positions persist. Methods: Ophthalmology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and urology residency programs were identified from the Canadian Resident Matching Service website. Academic rank was identified for all clinician faculty members using the university websites of residency programs. Gender was verified using provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons databases. h index, number of publications, number of citations, and number of years active were collected using Scopus. Demographic data were reported using descriptive and basic statistics. The effect of gender based on these criteria was assessed using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test. Results: Among 690 ophthalmologists, 73% (n=505) were men and 27% (n=185) were women. The median and interquartile range (IQR) for h index in men and women were 6.0 [3-11] and 5.0 [3-9], respectively. Men had significantly more publications (p=.009), citations (p=.022), and active years (p<.001). There was no significant difference in h-index between men and women (p=.058). Among 386 otolaryngologists, 80% (n=307) were men and 20% (n=79) were women. The median and IQR for h index in men and women were 7.5 [3-16] and 6.0 [2-9], respectively. Men had significantly more publications (p=.012), citations (p=.029), active years (p< 0.001), and higher h index (p=.007). Among 301 plastic surgeons, 72% (n=216) were men and 28% (n=85) were women. The median and IQR for h-index in men and women were 5.0 [2-11] and 5.0 [3-10], respectively. There was no significant difference between men and women for h-indices (p=.549), number of publications (p=.507), citations (p=.107), unlike for the number of active years (p<.001). Among 260 urologists, 88% (n=230) were men and 12% (n=30) were women. The median and IQR for h index in men and women were 12.0 [5-26] and 8.0 [4-15], respectively. Men had significantly more publications (p=.026) and citations (p=.004). H-indices (p=.098) and the number of active years (p=.148) were not statistically different between both genders. Among all assessed surgical subspecialties, men occupied 85% of full professorship (254 men, 43 women) and 76% of overall faculty positions (1205 men, 371 women). Conclusion: Gender disparities in academic representation were observed in all surgical subspecialties. Plastic surgery demonstrated the least discrepancy in research productivity metrics by gender, followed by urology, ophthalmology, and otolaryngology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".