ArticleOncotarget2017
Gendermetrics of cancer research: results from a global analysis on lung cancer.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender disparity between first and senior authors on liver cancer research in the top journals of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.PloS one · 2024Article
- Performance of gender detection tools: a comparative study of name-to-gender inference services.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- The recent landscape of cancer research worldwide: a bibliometric and network analysis.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Gendermetrics of cancer research: results from a global analysis on prostate cancer.Oncotarget · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer research is critically dependent on a continuous recruitment of junior research staff that devotes its academic life not only to clinical duties but also to basic and translational research. The present study aims to elucidate the success concerning gender equality in cancer research in the last decade (from 2008 to 2016) with lung cancer as the target parameter. MATERIALS AND
methodsOn the basis of the Gendermetrics Platform, a total of 19,724 articles related to lung cancer research were analyzed. The key method was the combined analysis of the proportion of female authorships and the female-to-male odds ratio for first, co- and last authorships. The distribution of prestigious authorships was measured by the Prestige Index.
results31.3% of all authorships and 35.2% of the first, 32.2% of the co- and 22.1% of the last authorships were held by women. The corresponding female-to-male odds ratio is 1.22 (CI: 1.18-1.27) for first, 1.19 (CI: 1.16-1.23) for co- and 0.59 (CI: 0.57-0.61) for last authorships. Women are underrepresented at prestigious authorships compared to men (Prestige Index = -0.22). The female underrepresentation accentuates in articles with many authors that attract the highest citation rates.
conclusionsWhile the current system promotes early career promotion of women, men still outnumber women in leadership positions. However, this male-female career dichotomy has been narrowed in the last decade and will likely be further reduced in the next decade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.