ArticleBMC medical education2026
Representation of medical specialties in dean's cabinets at the top 40 NIH-funded United States medical schools.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Making the Evidence-Based Business Case for Family Medicine to your Institutional Leadership: A New ADFM Resource.Annals of family medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcademic leadership within medical schools shapes institutional culture, policy, and educational priorities. While demographic diversity has been studied, specialty representation in leadership is less understood. This study evaluates the distribution of medical specialties in dean's cabinets at the top 40 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded United States medical schools compared with national and hospital-based physician workforce data.
methodsPublicly available institutional websites were reviewed to identify dean's cabinet members across eight common leadership roles. Degree type and specialty (for MD/DO holders) were obtained from institutional profiles. Specialty representation was compared with 2023 national and hospital-based physician workforce data using paired t-tests.
resultsOf 320 leaders identified, 287 (89.7%) held an MD or DO. Internal Medicine (IM) accounted for 46.0%, followed by Pediatrics (13.2%) and Obstetrics/Gynecology (5.6%). Compared with the national workforce, IM (p < 0.0001), Pediatrics (p = 0.006), and Neurosurgery (p = 0.003) were overrepresented, while Family Medicine (FM; p < 0.0001), Emergency Medicine (p = 0.04), Anesthesiology (p = 0.008), Orthopedic Surgery (p = 0.016), and Ophthalmology (p = 0.037) were underrepresented. Similar trends were observed against hospital-based workforce data, with additional overrepresentation of Dermatology (p = 0.0008), ENT (p = 0.0005), and Plastic Surgery (p < 0.00001). Among IM leaders, 41.4% were generalists and 58.6% subspecialists, most commonly in Cardiology, Infectious Disease, and Pulmonary/Critical Care.
conclusionsDean's cabinets at top NIH-funded medical schools are dominated by IM and Pediatrics, with primary care, acute care, and procedural specialties underrepresented. These disparities may influence curriculum design, mentorship, and educational priorities related to community-based care, interprofessional education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and specialty-specific career pathways. Leadership development initiatives targeting underrepresented specialties could diversify expertise in academic medical governance.
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.