ArticlePloS one2026
Association of demographic characteristics with evolution of interest in anesthesiology during medical school.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysician workforce diversity improves access to care, outcomes, and workforce productivity. Yet, women and sexual minorities remain underrepresented in anesthesiology, while representation for low-income trainees remains poorly characterized. How interest in anesthesiology evolves among these groups during medical school remains unclear.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study of U.S. MD-granting medical school matriculants from 2014-2017 used Association of American Medical Colleges data on self-reported sociodemographic characteristics and anesthesiology interest. Students were grouped by interest evolution from matriculation to graduation: never interested (no-no), cultivated (no-yes), lost (yes-no), sustained (yes-yes). Chi-square tests characterized sociodemographic differences across interest paths. Firth logistic regression models assessed odds of cultivated vs never interested and sustained vs lost paths across sociodemographic groups.
resultsAmong 39,910 students in the cohort, 295 (0.7%) sustained, 2,007 (5.0%) cultivated, 494 (1.2%) lost interest, and 37,114 (93.0%) were never interested in anesthesiology. Women were less likely than men to have initial interest (1.5% vs 2.5%, p < .001), whereas initial interest among low-income (2.1% vs 1.9%, p = .087) and sexual minority (1.8% vs 2.0%, p = .505) students did not significantly differ from majority counterparts. Sustained interest did not differ significantly between women and men (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.63-1.14), according to low-income (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.22), or sexual minority status (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.41-1.45). Women (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.45-0.55) and sexual minority students (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.96) were less likely to cultivate interest than men and heterosexual students, respectively. Low-income students had greater (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.16-1.40) odds of cultivating interest compared to non-low-income peers.
conclusionsWomen's underrepresentation in anesthesiology is associated with lower initial and cultivated interest. Sexual minority students also demonstrated lower cultivated interest. These disparities identify time points in training where interest diverges by demographic group and may help prioritize where future research - including studies of targeted interventions - is most needed.
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.