Gender disparities in Italian academic medicine: A cross-sectional study of clinicians in the 2024 stanford top 2% scientists database

BACKGROUND: Women 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: A 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.. CONCLUSIONS: Women 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-04-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347836
Primary Topic
Diversity and Career in Medicine
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Gender disparities in Italian academic medicine: A cross-sectional study of clinicians in the 2024 stanford top 2% scientists database

Alessandro De Cassai, Annalisa Boscolo, Irene Paiusco, Sofia Gazzea et al.
PLoS ONE
Diversity and Career in Medicine
article

Gender disparities in Italian academic medicine: A cross-sectional study of clinicians in the 2024 stanford top 2% scientists database

Alessandro De Cassai, Annalisa Boscolo, Irene Paiusco, Sofia Gazzea, Maria Bisi, Mario De Bernardo, Paolo Navalesi, Christelle Chedom
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: A 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.. CONCLUSIONS: Women 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.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(4)
University of Padua (IT)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Diversity and Career in Medicine
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.