ArticlePloS one2026
Gender discrimination and personal and professional development fostered by allopathic medical schools in the United States.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite prevalent gender discrimination in medical education, its influence on personal and professional development, foundational competencies in medical training per the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), remains unclear. This retrospective cross-sectional study assesses how experiences of gender discrimination in medical school influence personal and professional identity formation (PPIF) among males and females.
methodsDeidentified student-level data were procured from the AAMC data warehouse for 37,610 MD students who matriculated in 2014-2015 and took the Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) between 2016-2020. Gender discrimination frequency was categorized as 'Never', 'Isolated', and 'Recurrent' from GQ responses to questions about denial of opportunities, offensive remarks, and lower evaluations due to gender. Students self-reported their sex as male, female or declined to answer. PPIF was assessed using two separate GQ metrics assessing student agreement on a 5-point Likert scale that their medical school fostered and nurtured their development as a person and a future physician, respectively, and dichotomized.
resultsFemale students experienced higher rates of isolated (12.6%) and recurrent (20.1%) gender discrimination than males (4.3% isolated, 6.2% recurrent). Females reported slightly lower personal (71.2%) but similar professional development (92.2%) rates compared to males (73.4% personal, 91.2% professional). Both sexes experiencing gender discrimination had lower likelihoods of PPIF than their counterparts without these experiences. If recurrent discrimination occurred, the aRR (95%CI) of professional development was 0.89 (0.87-0.90) for females and 0.78 (0.74-0.81) for males, while for personal development, it was 0.69 (0.67-0.71) for females and 0.61 (0.58-0.66) for males. Compared to females, males showed sharper declines in professional development as discrimination frequency increased from never to isolated (aRR = 0.93, 95% CI [0.92-0.94], p < 0.001) and isolated to recurrent (aRR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.93-0.97], p < 0.001).
conclusionsGender discrimination negatively influences PPIF for both female and male medical students. Efforts to combat discrimination in medical training and promote holistic student development should be considered. Future work is needed to understand the influence of gender discrimination on the comprehensive development of gender-diverse medical students.
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.