ArticleJAMIA open2026
Large language model-based evaluation of the impact of gender in medical research.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Gender disparities in academic medicine have been previously reported, but prior analyses have relied on either manual labor or fixed databases of name-gender pairs that fail to generalize across different populations and cultures. The objective of this work is to evaluate the utility of large language models (LLMs) as a potential tool to facilitate systematic bibliometric analysis of academic research trends. Methods: We introduce an LLM-based pipeline that aggregates gender labels from multiple LLM instances to predict the genders of manuscript authors based on their first names. Results: Our proposed method outperforms alternative algorithms relying on lookup from finite databases of name-gender pairs, while also offering the scalability to tens of millions of authors that is unfeasible with other manual, human-based methods alone. Discussion and Conclusion: Our results suggest that LLMs can be a powerful tool to scalably track gender-based trends in academic medical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.