ArticlePloS one2026
Gender disparities in Italian academic medicine: A cross-sectional study of clinicians in the 2024 stanford top 2% scientists database.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen remain underrepresented in senior and influential research positions despite gradual improvements over recent decades.The aim of this study was to assess gender representation among highly cited Italian clinical scientists and to examine differences across academic fields, institutions, and geographic regions.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Italian clinical scientists included in the 2024 Stanford Top 2 Percent Scientists database. Gender was determined from given names, and demographic and academic information was obtained from national physician registries and publicly available curriculum vitae. Characteristics were compared by gender, and a logistic regression model was used to examine factors associated with female representation.
resultsA total of 3389 clinical scientists were identified, of whom 824 were women. Women represented approximately one quarter of highly cited Italian clinical researchers. They were younger and had more recent years of first publication compared with men. No significant gender differences were observed in academic affiliation or geographic distribution. Representation varied across fields, with surgical specialties demonstrating the lowest proportions of women and toxicology the highest. However, in most disciplines, representation converged toward the overall average when sample sizes increased, indicating that academic fields alone contributed minimally to gender representation. In the multivariable model, only toxicology showed significantly greater female representation, while more recent year of first publication was independently associated with being a woman..
conclusionsWomen remain underrepresented among highly cited Italian clinical scientists, despite evidence of gradual improvement in representation over time. The limited influence of academic fields suggests that broader structural and cultural factors likely contribute to these gaps. These findings highlight the need for targeted strategies to promote equal representation and support the career advancement of women in academic medicine.
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.