ArticleBMC medical education2026
Where the pipeline leaks and delays: gendered academic dynamics in anatomy in Türkiye.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study examines gender representation across the academic anatomy pipeline in Türkiye, from graduate education and thesis authorship to academic faculty ranks, and aims to identify where gender disparities emerge.
methodsData were obtained from three national open-access sources: annual reports on the numbers of master’s and doctoral students in anatomy programs (2015–2025), all anatomy theses published between 1969–2024, and the distribution of academic staff in anatomy departments as of March 2025. Gender was classified using publicly available institutional and academic profiles. These datasets were examined comparatively to map longitudinal patterns from training to senior academic ranks.
resultsA total of 1,657 theses were included; women accounted for 57.2% of authors, and their proportion increased from 42.9% in early decades to 64.8% in 2020–2024 (p<0.001). Between 2015–2025, women’s representation rose from 58.2% to 69.7% in master’s programs and from 40.1% to 54.7% in doctoral programs. Despite strong representation of women at trainee levels, only 31% of professors in 2025 were women, while their representation was markedly higher among research assistants (74.4%) and lecturers (69.6%). Academic rank and gender were significantly associated (p<0.001), indicating progressive attrition of women along the academic pathway.
conclusionsAlthough women enter the anatomy field in Türkiye in strong numbers and successfully complete graduate training, this increasing representation does not translate into senior academic positions. These findings show that women’s strong early-stage presence fails to reach senior ranks, exposing both clear leakage and suggesting marked delayed advancement in the academic pipeline.
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.