Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41103889›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Artificial Intelligence in Action: Racial and Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology.

Lucy Hui, Faisal Khosa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lucy HuiDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CAN.
Faisal KhosaDepartment of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, CAN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic radiology continues to face persistent gender and racial disparities in career advancement. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms offers new opportunities to analyze workforce diversity patterns rapidly and at scale. This study aimed to evaluate the interpretative capacity of three generative AI platforms (i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Perplexity) in identifying disparities in academic rank and tenure status across gender and racial subgroups in academic radiology. The outputs of these AI models were compared with conventional human-led analyses for accuracy, limitations, and potential biases. We prompted each AI model to analyze publicly available American Association of Medical Colleges Faculty Roster data on tenure and rank distribution by gender and race using standardized query templates. Outputs were systematically evaluated for consistency, accuracy, and potential biases against benchmark human-curated studies. Comparative analysis included variations between AI platforms and traditional research methods, with particular attention to how each model interpreted and reported disparities. The AI models broadly recognized trends in faculty growth and underrepresentation, but interpretations varied. Perplexity and DeepSeek provided more granular insights, such as declining tenure rates and intersectional disparities, while ChatGPT offered less detailed analyses. Key discrepancies included divergent temporal trends and policy recommendations, highlighting AI's limitations in capturing nuanced sociodemographic patterns. Generative AI shows promise in analyzing workforce disparities but requires validation to mitigate biases and inconsistencies. When used alongside traditional methods, AI can enhance understanding of inequities in academic medicine, provided that its outputs are critically evaluated for fairness and accuracy.

Indexed as

academic radiologyfaculty advancementgender and racial inequitiesgenerative artificial intelligenceworkforce disparities

Identifiers

PMID41103889
PMCPMC12526662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.