ArticleCureus2024
What Are the Trends in Women's Representation Among Principal Investigators of US Clinical Trials in the Field of Genetics?
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Large language model-based evaluation of the impact of gender in medical research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite progress in the representation of women in the medical profession, substantial gender disparities persist in leadership roles, particularly in clinical trials. Clinical trials are crucial to evidence-based medicine, offering visibility, career advancement, and future funding opportunities for principal investigators (PIs). However, women remain underrepresented in these roles, especially in genetics. This study aimed to evaluate (1) the proportion of women PIs in genetic clinical trials and its change over time, (2) trial characteristics (phase, funding source, intervention type) associated with women PIs, and (3) the geographic distribution of women-led trials in the United States.
methodsWe analyzed 4,112 genetic clinical trials conducted in the United States and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2024. Trials lacking defined phases or complete investigator information were excluded. Statistical analyses were conducted using Fisher's exact tests and univariate linear regression.
resultsWomen comprised 1,552 out of 4,112 (37.7%) PIs, with representation fluctuating from seven out of 24 (29.2%) in 2008 to a peak of 17 out of 29 (58%) in 2010 before leveling off to 573 out of 1,712 (33%) in 2024. Women PIs conducted a higher number of behavioral (240 out of 1,552, 15.5%) and other interventions (218 out of 1,552, 14%) studies, compared to 196 out of 2,560 (7.7%) and 222 out of 2,560 (8.7%), respectively, for men. On the other hand, men PIs had a higher number of genetic (111 out of 2,560, 4.3%) and drug (1,654 out of 2,560, 64.6%) trials, compared to 44 out of 1,552 (7.7%) and 841 out of 1,552 (54.2%), respectively, for women. Women received more federal funding (24 out of 1,552 (1.5%) vs. 17 out of 2,560 (0.6%)), while men dominated industry funding (695 out of 2,560 (27.1%) vs. 386 out of 1,552 (24.9%)).
conclusionWomen remain underrepresented as PIs in genetic clinical trials, with no sustained growth over time. Mentorship programs, equitable funding policies, and increased visibility of women researchers are essential to address these disparities and foster equity in clinical trial leadership.
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.