ArticleNeurology. Education2026
Education Research: Linguistic Analysis of Racial and Gender Biases in Letters of Recommendation of Neurology Residency Applicants.
Article in Neurology. 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
Background and Objectives: Letters of recommendation (LORs) are a key component of the residency selection process, particularly as objective metrics become less available. Previous studies across specialties have identified implicit gender and racial biases in narrative LORs (NLOR), potentially influencing perceptions of applicants. This study assessed whether such biases are present in NLORs for Neurology residency applicants. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of NLORs written for all American (US) medical school graduates applying to a single academic Neurology residency program during the 2021-2022 application cycle. Letters were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to evaluate structural, cognitive, and emotional language features. Custom dictionaries assessed applicant-related language (e.g., ability, doubt-raising, and gendered terms). Multivariable analyses were performed to examine variations in language use by applicant gender (man vs woman) and race (majority vs underrepresented in medicine [URiM]) across predefined linguistic categories. Analyses were further stratified by letter-writer gender, academic rank, and geographic region. Results: A total of 431 NLORs were analyzed; 239 (55.8%) were written for female applicants and 72 (16.7%) for URiM applicants. In primary analysis, no significant differences were seen in LORs based on applicant race or gender. Letters for male applicants written by professors showed more gendered language compared with those for female applicants (0.32, IQR: 0.27-0.37 vs 0.15, IQR: 0.13-0.18, Discussion: In this linguistic analysis of Neurology NLORs, we did not identify broad or systematic bias in letters written by adult neurologists for Neurology applicants. Our findings suggest that the continued use of NLORs for Neurology residency applicants is appropriate. Larger, multi-institutional studies are warranted to validate these findings and clarify the potential biasing effect of gendered language in LORs.
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.