ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Inferring gender from first names: Comparing the accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R package on authors of diverse nationality.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of dental research excellence: an analysis of Stanford-Elsevier lists of the top 2% scholars worldwide (2017-2023).Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Expressive Punctuation and Subjective Adjectives in Biomedical Abstracts for Scholarly Communication.Cureus · 2026Review
- Who Agrees to Review a Manuscript inEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Progress and Gaps: Two Decades of Female Authorship in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Performance of name-to-gender inference: comparison between Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io in a multicultural global dataset.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Authorship and citation trends in dementia research: A path to equitable career development for scientists.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- A systematic analysis of the gender disparities in oncology journal editorial boards.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Informal connections outweigh coauthorship ties in academic impact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Incorporation of the National Institute of Health (NIH) sex as a biological variable policy by R01 grant awardees.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Collaborative relationships, disciplinary and global culture, social identity and scientific status shape how scholars cite prior work.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Gender Disparities in Citations and Altmetric Attention Score in Oncology.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Attribution of credit in acknowledgements: The case of systematic reviews in medicine.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Transorbital approach: a bibliometric analysis from 1948 to 2024.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Review
- Global evolution of female authorships in anesthesiology articles: an affiliation-based, longitudinal, scientometric analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Gender equality in leadership of HIV care cascade clinical trials: A methodological study.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Scientific publications that use promotional language in the abstract receive more citations and public attention.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Women climate scientists are connected, productive, and successful but have shorter careers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Twenty years of infectious disease dynamics research: gender and race imbalances in publication and citation practices.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Gender Composition of Invited Speakers and Session Chairs at American Society for Apheresis Annual Meetings Between 2019 and 2024.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-researchers commonly leverage tools that infer gender from first names, especially when studying gender disparities. However, tools vary in their accuracy, ease of use, and cost. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost of the commercial software Genderize and Gender API, and the open-source gender R package. Differences in binary gender prediction accuracy between the three services were evaluated. Gender prediction accuracy was tested on a multi-national dataset of 32,968 gender-labeled clinical trial authors. Additionally, two datasets from previous studies with 5779 and 6131 names, respectively, were re-evaluated with modern implementations of Genderize and Gender API. The gender inference accuracy of Genderize and Gender API were compared, both with and without supplying trialists' country of origin in the API call. The accuracy of the gender R package was only evaluated without supplying countries of origin. The accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R package were defined as the percentage of correct gender predictions. Accuracy differences between methods were evaluated using McNemar's test. Genderize and Gender API demonstrated 96.6% and 96.1% accuracy, respectively, when countries of origin were not supplied in the API calls. Genderize and Gender API achieved the highest accuracy when predicting the gender of German authors with accuracies greater than 98%. Genderize and Gender API were least accurate with South Korean, Chinese, Singaporean, and Taiwanese authors, demonstrating below 82% accuracy. Genderize can provide similar accuracy to Gender API while being 4.85x less expensive. The gender R package achieved below 86% accuracy on the full dataset. In the replication studies, Genderize and gender API demonstrated better performance than in the original publications. Our results indicate that Genderize and Gender API achieve similar accuracy on a multinational dataset. The gender R package is uniformly less accurate than Genderize and Gender API.
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.