ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Performance of name-to-gender inference: comparison between Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io in a multicultural global dataset.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 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.
- Bias and Reliability of AI-Based Peer Review: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Claude Evaluating Scientific Abstracts.Journal of general internal 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inferring gender from first names is widely used in medical research when gender data are unavailable, but tool performance may vary across cultural and linguistic contexts. We compared the real-world performance of three name-to-gender inference tools (Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io) in a large multicultural dataset with self-reported gender labels. We assembled publicly available results from seven major 2025 marathons: New York, Berlin, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi (n = 11,999, women = 6,000, men = 5,999). First names, with and without country of nationality, were submitted to each tool. We computed confusion matrices and performance metrics: overall error (errorCoded: misclassifications + nonclassifications), misclassifications among classified names (errorCodedWithoutNA), and nonclassifications (naCoded). A priori, a tool was defined as accurate when errorCoded was < 10%. Pairwise tool comparisons used McNemar's test. We also assessed confidence-threshold subsetting (≥ 60%- ≥ 90%) and region-specific performance. All three tools met the prespecified accuracy criterion overall. NamSor outperformed both comparators (p < 0.001). Without country information, errorCoded was 0.0481 (NamSor), 0.0867 (Gender API), and 0.0798 (genderize.io); NamSor produced no unclassified names. Performance was substantially lower for Asian nationalities and improved after excluding Asia/China. Increasing confidence thresholds reduced misclassifications but increased nonclassifications, raising overall error. Adding country improved performance for Gender API (p < 0.001) and genderize.io (p = 0.03), but not for NamSor (p = 0.41). In Conclusion, although all tools were accurate overall, performance depended strongly on geographic composition. Researchers should report expected misclassification rates based on external validation studies, justify confidence thresholds, and rely on tools validated in culturally comparable populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41933209What 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.